wayne wrote:
in the Unified-SPF drafts, I proposed a "fromhdr" identity as
different name for the "from" identity you mentioned above.
That covered interesting stuff like To:. William's "from" is
less interesting and covered by his "sender". It's an error
to have more than one From-address without a Sender-address.
Should I add an IANA consideration blurb about registering
scopes/identities?
No. IIRC Julian said "spf 3" about %{x} (= Meng's %{s} in old
discussions). For v=spf1 better get rid of the scope stuff in
Received-SPF, it's science fiction and useless, HELO vs. mfrom
is obvious, the former has no @.
Besides "mfrom" is an spf2.0 term, "scope" is an spf2.0 idea,
and a clumsy v=spf1 header field supporting "pra" is obscene^W
useless, the tested identity is visible.
Bye, Frank