On 5 Feb 2004 at 21:06, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
Speaking of patches, I am going over the draft one more time and plan to
submit it to the I-D archive tonight or tomorrow. The working version
is 02.9.6.
Eyeballs are welcome.
http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.6.txt
Oh, I just realized, there needs to be a discussion about MUAs
when you're doing header checking. I suggest adding this
in the text about header checking after the algorithm
(whatever it is):
"It is important that end-users be able to view the data checked by SPF.
Thus, Mail User Agents (MUAs) SHOULD display, at a minimum, the
header sender's name and value when displaying the message body.
It is RECOMMENDED that Resent-From, Resent-Sender, From, and Sender
all be displayed when available while an MUA is displaying a message body.
It is also RECOMMENDED that users be able to display the value of
header sender when an MUA displays a summary of messages."
This text above should work well. No matter what,
when the messsage body is displayed you'll see what was checked.
With a forwarder, if the forwarder uses Resent-From etc.,
all messages will have the same Resent-From value in a summary chart,
so the last sentence was phrased as a recommended option. Users
without forwarders will like it, while users with forwarders will
use a different option.
As far as WHICH header-checking algorithm to use:
The original algorithm borrowed from Caller-ID is at
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200402/0042.html
Roy Badami proposes an alternative algorithm at
http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com/200402/0169.html
Forwarders are going to have to prepend somethng; it might as well be
Resent-Sender. The algorithim should reflect that. Can we reopen this
debate?
Until there's a rough consensus (with running code) there needs
to be a debate :-). Please forgive my ignorance, though.
Are these the only two options on the table?
What are the pros and cons of each option?
I picked Roy Badami's approach primarily because it _appears_ to me
to be essentially the same as the expected algorithm for SMTP email
since SMTP was originally defined. But if there's a
better algorithm, great.
--- David A. Wheeler <dwheeler(_at_)dwheeler(_dot_)com>
-------
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_)œ§ÅvÂŒðŠŸØߎë ù1Ií-»Fqx(_dot_)com