« Return to Thread: Extending XBL to all untrusted
Re: Extending XBL to all untrusted
by McDonald, Dan
::
Rate this Message:
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 17:38 +0100, richard@... wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 18:28 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On 13.07.09 16:26, richard@... wrote:
> > > Do the RFC's state that they need to?
> >
> > yes, RFC4954 in section 7 does
> >
> Where - I don't see it say it needs to "push auth informations to
> Recieved: Headers";
>
>
> 7. Additional Requirements on Servers
>
> Upon successful authentication,
> a server SHOULD use the "ESMTPA" or the "ESMTPSA" [SMTP-TT] (when
> appropriate) keyword in the "with" clause of the Received header
> field.It's a SHOULD, not a MUST, but the intent is clear.
--
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281, CNX
www.austinenergy.com
> On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 18:28 +0200, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > On 13.07.09 16:26, richard@... wrote:
> > > Do the RFC's state that they need to?
> >
> > yes, RFC4954 in section 7 does
> >
> Where - I don't see it say it needs to "push auth informations to
> Recieved: Headers";
>
>
> 7. Additional Requirements on Servers
>
> Upon successful authentication,
> a server SHOULD use the "ESMTPA" or the "ESMTPSA" [SMTP-TT] (when
> appropriate) keyword in the "with" clause of the Received header
> field.
--
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281, CNX
www.austinenergy.com
signature.asc (204 bytes) « Return to Thread: Extending XBL to all untrusted
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
