spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Re: clamav plugin?

2004-01-30 11:36:16
Mark wrote:
To me, it feels a bit counter-intuitive. Here we have "Received-SPF",
as "field-name", plus a result code (pass, fail, softfail, etc) as
"field-body" content. It seems "Received" and "SPF", as an
inseparable entity (like "resent-from"), belong together in the
field-name. 

I would have mildly preferred "X-Received-SPF", if it were not for
the fact 
that RFC 2822 seems to shy away from 'rogue' X-headers. So, as it is,
I am perfectly happy with "Received-SPF".

I also see no reason to change the Received-SPF header.  Received-SPF:
and Received: are NOT the same header.  Adding a timestamp on the end
may be an improvement though.

---
Dustin D. Trammell
Vulnerability Remediation Alchemist
Citadel Security Software, Inc.

-------
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_)½§Åv¼ð¦¾Øß´ëù1Ií-»Fqx(_dot_)com


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>