spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Email Forwarder's Protocol ( EFP )

2005-02-23 17:28:18

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com 
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com] On Behalf Of 
Lennon - Orcon
Sent: woensdag 23 februari 2005 11:06
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Email Forwarder's Protocol ( EFP )

an email came thru

Had:
Return-path: SRS0=PtJo=RF=XXX(_dot_)XXX=YYY(_at_)bounce2(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com
Received-spf: none (integer.pobox.com: domain of XXX(_at_)ZZZZZ does not
designate permitted sender hosts)
X-SPF-Guess: pass (seems reasonable for XXXX(_at_)YYY to mail
through K.K.K.K)

I presume it already had a Recieved-spf header in it.. so it
won't add another one like you said in a few emails before.
Better to make it add X-Received-SPF at the moment on this
side (or hack the sendmail source?)

Actually, today I thought of a very easy 'hack' to get around having to
recompile sendmail. :) On your compiled binary, you would just do the
following:

sed -e 's/x400-received\(.\)/received-spf\1\1/g' sendmail > newsendmail

That does NOT mean X400-received will be replaced with Received-SPF
headers; it also does NOT mean mail can only contain 1 instance of the
X400-received header. It ONLY means that, from now on, you can use H lines
to force an extra Received-SPF header, instead of extra X400-received
headers. And when was the last time you needed to add an extra
X400-received header in a H line? :)

I know, it is dirty. :) But very effective, and provides an easy solution
for those who are not in a position to recompile their sendmail.

- Mark 
 
        System Administrator Asarian-host.org
 
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx