One thing I would point out is that the SPF spec does allow for SPF-Received
to be extended.
http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf_classic/draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02.html#anchor25
header = "Received-SPF:" [CFWS] result FWS [comment FWS]
[ key-value-list ] CRLF
key = "client-ip" / "envelope-from" / "helo" /
"problem" / "receiver" / "identity" /
mechanism / "x-" name / name
Other keys may be defined by SPF clients. Until a new key name becomes
widely accepted, new key names should start with "x-".
So, I don't think it's inherently wrong to build SPF like results into SPF
received headers. The real question would be what to put in result. To pick
a currently less controversial example, I would say that for the Trusted
Forwarder White List the result should be NONE (because it's in TFWL, you
skipped checking) and then the key might be x-tfwl or x-whitelisted.
Scott K
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com