[mail-vet-discuss] Removing A-R headers fields
Murray S. Kucherawy
msk at cloudmark.com
Mon Feb 8 10:37:15 PST 2010
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mail-vet-discuss-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:mail-vet-discuss-
> bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 9:53 AM
> To: mail-vet-discuss at mipassoc.org
> Subject: [mail-vet-discuss] Removing A-R headers fields
> (is this list still active?)
> Section 5 of rfc5451 says:
> An MTA SHOULD remove any instance of this header field bearing a
> version (express or implied) that it does not support. However, an
> MTA MUST remove such a header if the [SMTP] connection relaying the
> message is not from a trusted internal MTA.
> I'm puzzled about the "trusted internal" qualification. Assuming that
> "internal" is relative to an ADMD, "trusted" seemingly means the
> opposite of "compromised". Or was that meant to be "trusted _or_
> internal"? Perhaps, a trusted forwarder's A-R fields could be let
It's meant to distinguish between an internal MTA maintained by, for example, an ADMD's IT department versus one on someone's desktop. "Compromised" is one possibility for exclusion; "unauthorized" is another.
> BTW, any pointer to current deployments of this field?
Speaking only from personal experience, Google, Yahoo, dkim-milter, opendkim, dk-milter (deprecated), sid-milter all use it.
More information about the mail-vet-discuss