>> >> It seems like it would only take a couple little "tweaks" of the code to >> implement a 'spf_helo' [I found out '-' doesn't work :( ] check that could >> work in the HELO ACL (I think I have something workable). This would at >> least give people the option. From what I'm seeing on the SPF discussion >> lists, it seems like checking at HELO is becoming more popular. > >Perhaps what's needed is an optional second argument to 'spf = xxxx', >with the same syntax as 'spam = ' ... > >spf = xxxx : helo >spf = xxxx : mfrom > > >... preserving the existing behavior if the second argument is >missing, of course. >
That sounds like the perfect solution!! So the lines would look something like: spf = fail:softfail : helo and spf = fail:softfail : mfrom Is it done yet? :D > >> >> >I was wondering if I had time to look at using perl calls to the new >> >Mail::SPF module to have a bit more of a play...... >> > >> >> I started with the perl Mail:SPF modules and had everything working, HELO >> included, but I was getting occasional problems connecting to the spfd. I >> know that I'm running on a very tiny machine and that might be the problem. >> That's why I started looking into the integrated libspf2 solution. >> > >I agree, it probably should be supported. I just mocked up the >Mail::SPF HELO check, seems to be functionally OK, but performance is >a worry. > >Peter -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
