Re: [exim] Experimental SPF spec...

>>
>> It seems like it would only take a couple little "tweaks" of the code
to
>> implement a 'spf_helo' [I found out '-' doesn't work :( ] check that
could
>> work in the HELO ACL (I think I have something workable). This would
at
>> least give people the option. From what I'm seeing on the SPF
discussion
>> lists, it seems like checking at HELO is becoming more popular.
>
>Perhaps what's needed is an optional second argument to 'spf = xxxx',
>with the same syntax as 'spam = ' ...
>
>spf = xxxx : helo
>spf = xxxx : mfrom
>
>
>... preserving the existing behavior if the second argument is
>missing, of course.
>

That sounds like the perfect solution!! So the lines would look something
like:

spf = fail:softfail : helo

and

spf = fail:softfail : mfrom

Is it done yet? :D

>
>>
>> >I was wondering if I had time to look at using perl calls to the new
>> >Mail::SPF module to have a bit more of a play......
>> >
>>
>> I started with the perl Mail:SPF modules and had everything working,
HELO
>> included, but I was getting occasional problems connecting to the spfd.
I
>> know that I'm running on a very tiny machine and that might be the
problem.
>> That's why I started looking into the integrated libspf2 solution.
>>
>
>I agree, it probably should be supported. I just mocked up the
>Mail::SPF HELO check, seems to be functionally OK, but performance is
>a worry.
>
>Peter