On 7/5/19 9:51 AM, Henrik K wrote: > On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 02:46:16PM +0000, David Jones wrote: >> >> I am completely OK with switching to a new X-Relay-Countries-MUA header >> as long as it works just like the current X-Relay-Countries when there >> is no MUA. If it's differnt logic or an extra header to check, then >> that would mean duplicating and managing another set of rules and scores >> for dozens/hundreds of country codes. >> >> In other words, could the new X-Relay-Countries rules be ordered so the >> each one also includes the lower ones like syslog works? > > I don't like it. There's specific function for the headers. Someone might > want to check specific countries for authenticated users, which might not be > the same countries than for generic relay checks. >
If there truly are specific functions for each header with different logic then I agree that they should be separate. My understanding of the proposed X-Relay-Countries-MUA would be identical to the current X-Relay-Countries except when there is an authenticated MSA, then it would show the country code. If you have written the code (I haven't looked yet) for X-Relay-Countries-MUA to be blank when the MUA is blank then I agree with you and I will have to manage multiple sets of the same rules/scores checking each header. This logic could be designed to provide individual headers and other headers for layers of boundaries. The layer approach could be very useful for scoring differences using multipliers for higher, less trusted sources. -- David Jones
