Currently, pymilter adds up to 3 SPF headers:
2007Feb24 10:49:22 [4149] Received-SPF: none (mail.bmsi.com: 212.76.37.164
is neither permitted nor denied by domain of apachegrips.com)
client_ip=212.76.37.164; envelope_from="Poratoiyg(_at_)apachegrips(_dot_)com";
helo=nat-go2.aster.pl; receiver=mail.bmsi.com; identity=mailfrom
2007Feb24 10:49:22 [4149] X-Hello-SPF: pass
2007Feb24 10:49:22 [4149] X-Guessed-SPF: neutral
The X-Guessed-SPF header exists because such heuristic results should
always be distinguished from the official SPF result. The X-Hello-SPF
header exists because adding two Received-SPF headers is cumbersome and
redundant (been there, done that).
Now, I'm thinking that X-Hello and X-Guessed should be extended keywords
on the Received-SPF, so that the above would become:
2007Feb24 10:49:22 [4149] Received-SPF: none (mail.bmsi.com: 212.76.37.164
is neither permitted nor denied by domain of apachegrips.com)
client_ip=212.76.37.164;
envelope_from="Poratoiyg(_at_)apachegrips(_dot_)com";
helo=nat-go2.aster.pl; receiver=mail.bmsi.com; identity=mailfrom;
x-hello=pass; x-guessed=neutral
Comments? Anyone already using similar keywords that I should be consistent
with?
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.
-------
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