Re: [exim] [OT] SPF ranting

Axel Thimm wrote:

> Just whether the change :spf_received: -> :at_start_rfc: is correct.

Yes. The new name isn't ideal either, but at least it does not relate to
SPF any more :)

What it should express is that the header is added at a position that
still conforms to RFC822/2822 but isn't at the bottom of the chain.

/tom