On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 07:06:34PM +0800, Bill Hacker wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:10:53PM +0800, Bill Hacker wrote:
> > > Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > [technical question on placement of Received-SPF header]
> > > Possibly the most commonly suggested method of using SPF seems to be
> > > 'not at all', or at least 'only with specific correspondents, and
> > > then only with customization' (and a grain of salt?).
> > > [more ranting]
> > Anyway, the question was on _how_ to do it (properly), I didn't want
> > to discuss pros and cons of the method itself.
>
> Perhaps a review of the archives would be worth your time - there is
> quite a lot there,
> - IIRC around October 04 thru December 04 was the heavy discussion period.
For heaven's sake, this is a technical question, not
alt.religion.I.hate.SPF. I'm not asking if SPF is evil or not, I hope
it is, as am I. ;)
Just whether the change :spf_received: -> :at_start_rfc: is correct.
Please no more ranting and sermons, obviously there are enough in the
archives.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
