On Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 11:14:38PM -0700, Mark Lentczner wrote:
2) The Received-SPF header has not been included. Replies to my
question indicated general acceptance that this was part of SPF v1.
However, upon review of the available language, I have found that the
header is poorly specified: The grammar was incomplete and ambiguous,
and the operational aspects of it left some large open questions.
Hence, rather than design-on-the-fly, I left it out.
I might have missed a debate about this one, but I think it'd be wise to
do include something about this header. Maybe just that it should be
added above the last received header, and that it contains the result
followed by some implementation specific note between brackets??
I know, not very precise and I must leave it at this for the moment, but
I do feel we need something about this header in there, or else we could
end up with invisible SPF implementations..
Koen
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/