Boyd,
I think I have a complete archive and this is the only message I found that
mentions X-LOCAL-SPF-Policy. No patches, sorry.
Which implementation were you patching?
Scott K
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: [spf-devel] Status: The test suite
Date: Thursday 27 July 2006 15:39
From: Boyd Lynn Gerber <gerberb(_at_)zenez(_dot_)com>
To: spf-devel(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Norman Maurer wrote:
Question:
I don't think it is correct for an SPF library to return PASS for
127.* ips (unless sender policy says so, of course). ScottK proposed the
result LOCAL, which is understood to not be an official SPF result,
and should not go in a Received-SPF header field.
I have been using the X-Guessed-SPF header field to record unofficial
results used for receiver policy. However, this name is not appropriate
for LOCAL (which is a definite policy and not guessed). Any naming
suggestions?
I use X-LOCAL-SPF-Policy.
- --
Boyd Gerber <gerberb(_at_)zenez(_dot_)com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/
iD8DBQFEyRZrVtBjDid73eYRAm6UAJwNA2HtKRb+XsIFXyzcYqwr7WFSmACbBbB+
DsYBNDXgnlvp49g5KlBTDLo=
=7URc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription, please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
-------------------------------------------------------
--
What have you done to help win the war TODAY?
-------
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/?list_id=735