On Thu, 12 May 2005, wayne wrote:
In <20050504063621(_dot_)GA3930(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com> Mark Shewmaker
<mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com> writes:
I would like to bring up two things:
1. The default overall result isn't defined for all cases
in which the mailfrom and helo results don't match.
After talking with MarkS on #SPF, I believe that most of the confusion
here is caused by the draft not being clear that there can be more
than one Received-SPF header generated by each hope. I will update
the draft to make it clearer that if you check multiple scopes, you
should generate one Received-SPF header for each one.
I'd rather have one header per hop then several. But than you probably
know that I don't like Received-SPF header and prefer Authorization-Results
with multiple UnifiedSPF scopes allowed there.
2. It might be helpful to define a few more (optional)
received-spf key names. Since they're not defined
now, this wouldn't be a change that would break any
existing implementation.
MarkS's suggested Received-SPF keywords are mostly based along the
idea of how to explain several different conflicting results of
different SPF checks on different scopes in one Received-SPF header.
While I don't think that is particularly useful, I *do* think that
adding (and recommend using) a scope= keyword is a good idea.
What do other people think?
Go ahead if you're prepared to describe how that is to be used with
MAILFROM and HELO checking and that they are scopes as well and should
be identified as such in the header.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net