(Hoping this doesn't become a general complaint thread about the sendmail MTA, which would mean it's off-topic...)
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Mark Martinec wrote: > That would help. The other great achievement would be to let a milter > see the Received header field that is being generated by the MTA. That hasn't been necessary for working implemntations of DomainKeys or DKIM. I'd be interested in seeing the mechanics of why that's needed for SpamAssassin. I'll browse the links you provided when I have a chance. > Also, not knowing the exact final appearance of this header field, along > with a creative counting of header field index when inserting a new > field by a milter, makes it a mess when a signing milter is combined > with some other classical milter. Using an index of "1" when calling smfi_insheader() has always worked for me to get header fields prepended, even with DomainKeys which was actually sensitive to the position in which its signature was inserted. In fact, it was for that proposal that smfi_insheader() was added in the first place. DKIM, being position-agnostic, could even use smfi_addheader() without a problem. Seems to me selection of the insertion index is fairly straightforward; 0 puts it even before the Received: header field that will be added by the processing MTA, 1 will put it between that one and the first one sent in via SMTP, 2 will put it after the first injected one, 3 will put it after the second, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ dkim-milter-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dkim-milter-discuss
