"wayne" == wayne <wayne(_at_)midwestcs(_dot_)com> writes:
wayne> Have you tried using these algorithms on read emails? If
wayne> so, what kind of results have you seen?
No, I haven't. That was just based on a few minutes of reviewing RFC
2822.
Actually, on reflection, what SPF should probably say is something
more like the following:
---
The header sender is defined as follows: in the case of a message that
has not been resent (as evidenced by the lack of appropriate headers),
the header sender is taken to be the value of the Sender header, if
present, otherwise the value of the From header. Where a message has
been resent (as evidenced by the presence of appropriate headers), the
header sender is taken to be the value of the Resent-Sender header (if
present) in the first block, otherwise the value of the Resent-From
header in the first block. If the message is not conformant to the
syntax of RFC 2822, the behaviour is undefined. A sample
implementation is defined in Apendix Foo.
---
It would be good to give a sample algorithm, but SPF shouldn't get in
to the business of how to interpret non-conformant messages. Hence,
any sample algorithm should be just that. As long as the algorithm
used satisfies the above description for all 2822 conformant messages,
it's a valid implementation.
How's that?
-roy
-------
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?¡