[mail-vet-discuss] Auth-Results issues? #2 headerspec
tony at att.com
Tue Mar 28 12:10:42 PST 2006
1) Move the headerspec to after the method=result.
2) Make the headerspec ptype a list of "smtp", "header" and "body".
3) Make the headerspec property an optional value to be specified by the
registration specifics for a given authentication method. So whatever
document is used to define how A-R is used by dkim would also specify
what value should go here. Not all authentication methods will need a
4) Make the headerspec value a mailbox, domain or token. Which it is
would also to be specified in the authentication method specific
registration for a given method.
Here is an example of an A-R header with multiple results combined together:
dkim=pass header+body=foo.example.org (comments);
csv=pass smtp.ehlo=foo.example.org (comments);
sidf=pass body.sender=user at foo.example.org (comments)
Note how the headerspec varies with the method and its results reflect
both: 1) what was used to do the tests, and 2) the identity that was
tony at att.com
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
>> It's unclear how multiple methods are to be combined together into a
>> single header; what happens with the "headerspec" value? If you wanted
>> to put in an A-R header saying that the message passed CSV, SIDF, SPF
>> and DKIM, how would those be combined? Each of those could and
>> possibly should have totally different values for headerspec.
>> Each of those could and possibly should have totally different values
>> for headerspec. Messages often have multiple identities that are
>> confirmed differently by the various authentication methods. CSV can
>> identify the relay hostname. SIDF can identify the
>> rfc822.sender/from/etc. SPF can identify the smtp.from hostname. DKIM
>> can identify the sender's hostname. Which one goes into the
> Yes, this is an issue that's been brought up several times. Currently,
> if the headerspec needs to change you have to create multiple AR headers
> IIRC. I'd prefer an approach where the headerspec and the methods that
> were used with it were grouped together somehow and we could do this in
> a single header.
>> make it subordinate to the method=result. In other words, the
>> headerspec should be supporting information to what was validated, not
>> the other way around.
> Could you provide a sample of how one of those headers might look? I
> think I'm on the same page with you but want to see one to make sure.
>> In the samples, some authors have punted and just put in a
>> "header.from" value,
> That's because some things don't have a corrolation to anything in the
> envelope or headers as you've said. For example, how to you
> 'headerspec' the DKIM identity that was verified?
More information about the mail-vet-discuss