+1
Ned
> --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
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
