On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 08:38:00AM -0500, wayne wrote:
In <20050531180225(_dot_)GA7253(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com> Mark Shewmaker
<mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com> writes:
Everywhere else in the I-D, the term "identity" is used.
But didn't you just change the document to use identity elsewhere too?
If reciever policy says that a failing mailfrom should be considered a
PASS because the verified HELO is trusted, how is that documented in
received-spf?
Such information could be placed in the comment, just as local policy
information currently is placed there by several SPF implementations.
The problem is that comments aren't machine-readable.
I haven't thought of a good set of words to use yet, [...]
At this stage of the game, I'm very reluctant to introduce new
concepts.
Even for optional info for a trace header--just so a naming convention
would already exist? (I admit this is a couple steps past adding
"scope=" or "identity=".)
--
Mark Shewmaker
mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com