On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 03:22:08PM +0100, Jeremy Harris wrote:
> On 03/09/15 15:04, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 01:25:31PM +0000, admin@??? wrote:
> >
> >> Assuming the field was similar in form to the Remote-MTA field it would
> >> have 'mta-name-type ";" arg' content; the only current mta-name-type (
> >> per https://www.iana.org/assignments/dsn-types/dsn-types.xhtml ) is "dns"
> >> and gives a name. I'd prefer an IP address, and would for now use an
> >> experimental mta-name-type of "X-ip". Again, this would need an RFC for
> >> a proper assignment.
> >
> > I would avoid "X-ip" and consider "X-Exim-Local-IP" or similar.
> > The idea is to make some effort to avoid collisions in "X-" headers.
>
> I don't buy that. The field usage is not Exim-specific; it could be
> used by any MTA that cares to discover the IP in use.
The intent is of course not Exim-specific, but lacking an RFC
defining the field, the ad-hoc "X-" header is Exim-specific. I
don't see a compelling need to standardize the "X-" header, so
"X-Exim-" seems to make more sense, but you're of course free to
disagree and the "bad" consequences of using "X-ip" instead are
likely *nil*.
--
Viktor.
