In <009b01c3e745$d21e32e0$cec8d684(_at_)sraq(_dot_)intra> "Guillaume Filion"
<gfk(_at_)logidac(_dot_)com> writes:
Yes, of course ClamAV needs to be fixed. My point was if there was a lot of
other programs that were broken like ClamAV is, then is might be easier to
change SPF rather than all the broken programs. [...]
At this stage of the game, I think it is important to at least consider
changing the format of the Received-SPF: headers. I suspect that with
so few MTAs actually checking and generating these headers, that
running into a program that breaks because of them may indicate that
there are a lot of such programs.
Of course, there may also be programs that break if we switch to
Received: headers with the SPF keyword. (SpamCop? SpamAssassin?)
So, what are the advantages of using "Received-SPF:" compared with
"Received: SPF"?
-wayne
-------
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_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡