On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, Scott Kitterman wrote:
From an RFC 4408 SPF perspective you do have two SPF results. One for Mail
From and one for HELO, so I would think that two headers would be
appropriate. Why are you against them?
That's what I thought at first. But most of the HELO Received-SPF header field
is redundant, and having both is confusing for those humans looking at
the mail header. I am not *against* having both, and maybe I'll have an
option to report HELO SPF results in a second Received-SPF header. But
I dislike the redundancy for aesthetic reasons.
Also, when reputation code is processing Received-SPF headers from a
trusted relay/forwarder to find who to blame for the email, one-stop
shopping is cleaner.
was added by a trusted relay. I'd suggest looking at what they did and
producing a result that they will use (that's the only automated consumer of
Receieved-SPF that I am aware of that's likely to be widely deployed in the
near term).
Thanks for the vote of confidence :-) I would *hope* that they consume
the standard keywords (and I won't bother catering to any renaming of the
standard ones). Spfmilter.py should probably produce the two headers,
rather than put helo result in an extended keyword.
But do they have the equivalent of a heuristic result? And is my name
ok? Or do you prefer another name?
--
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