--On Friday, May 27, 2011 17:37 +0200 Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 26/May/11 18:56, S Moonesamy wrote: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-00 >> >> Please review the I-D and send comments to the YAM mailing >> list. > > Does it make any sense to add an MSA-specific header field? > > Hm... RFC 5451 provides an Authentication-Results entry to > convey SMTP-AUTH results --not necessarily SUBMISSION. It is > exemplified as > > Authentication-Results: example.com; > auth=pass (cram-md5) [email protected]; Folks, let's remember the YAM (and Full Standard) constraints. Adding new fields or other features -- required or even optional-- sets us back to Proposed. > Thus, if at all, it may be worth mentioning that the relevant > /propspec/ may be omitted for the same reason. That is, e.g., > > Authentication-Results: example.com; > auth=pass (details omitted as precautionary measure); Because "Authentication-Results:" is not a 4409 field, it seems to me that this is a problem that needs to be addressed in 5451bis or elsewhere, not here. john _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
