>Does anyone understand SRS? I thought it was pretty much a dead end. It dates from the magic bullet phase of SPF, so yeah.
>The reason we rewrite is so that bounces come back to us so we can >automatically disable forwarding if the account we're forwarding to goes >away. Well, actually, you're doing SRS with different syntax. Local bounce management is one of the few things it does successfully. The original plan was that you'd forward the bounces back which unsurprisingly turned out not to be a great idea. >Which reminds me, I need to ping the spam folks again, that page is still >recommending putting SPAM in the subject, which breaks dkim, which is the >last thing you should do. I think we're going to support an X-Spam header >instead... except of course that's a violation of RFC 6648. Anyone want to >recommend a generic header name? Please use X-Spam-Status: which is what Spamassassin adds, and I think several other filter packages. If you parse RFC 6648 carefully, you'll see that while it tells you not to invent any new X- headers, it says it's OK to keep using the ones that already exist. R's, John _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop
