Chris Haynes wrote:
How's that?
In the discussions about the XML Caller-Id stuff one argument
was that most MTAs are not really interested to do a http GET.
There are four parties in your I18N scenarios:
1 - the owner of a domain defines a sender policy (incl. exp=),
2 - a user of addresses in this domain sending his mail with...
3 - ...an MSA not allowed to send any MAIL FROM "1" addresses.
4 - the recipient (or rather his MX).
"4" rejects the mail based on a SPF FAIL result, and optionally
includes the exp= string found with the sender policy of "1".
"3" has to create a bounce for "2", and probably "3" inserts
the error message of "4" literally. With your idea "3" would
have to GET (http resp. https) the text of the URL. But "3"
doesn't know the language preferences of "2", only the browser
of "2" knows these language preferences. Therefore I still
think that "2" (= the user) should GET the exp= URL, not "3".
Bye, Frank