Guillaume Filion [gfk(_at_)logidac(_dot_)com] wrote:
"Julian Mehnle" <lists(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> wrote:
You mean, it will work around things that are already broken, like
when expecting a "Received:" line at the top of the headers?
The idea is to break the least number of things. Using Received-SPF
break a somewhat popular program, ClamAV.
No, it doesn't. ClamAV already is broken if it doesn't accept perfectly
standards compliant messages.
I speculate that using Received instead of Received-SPF would break
less things, and that's why I'm proposing it.
But it's the wrong thing to do.
Many MTAs add a "Return-Path:" header at the top, so this would "break" ClamAV,
too. Should we "fix" all these (perfectly standards compliant) MTAs, too?
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.5.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)���v¼����ߴ� �1I�-�Fqx(_dot_)com