On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:35 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Gene Shuman <g...@valimail.com> wrote: > >> I think its clear that we fail all of these messages. But for signing, >> we need to specify an ordering on these pathological arc headers, as >> section [5.2.1] only applies when you can logically define arc sets. We >> also probably need this ordering to downgrade to that in section [5.2.1] >> when applicable, and to the defacto ordering in the standard case. >> > The intent of section 5.2.1 was never to deal with pathological cases. It was to deal with somewhat broken MTAs that do stupid things like reordering headers in alphabetical order or slightly broken implementations which might replicate headers. I'm OK with a general approach of declaring all such broken implementations as being "beyond redemption". We should probably focus on a clear way to demarcate such a condition when it is processed by a conformant handler and move on. Gene, if you have wording suggestions in mind, those will be gratefully received; otherwise I'll take a swing at restructuring the section while I'm in flight on Saturday. One of the questions that comes to mind is "what should the good actor do with all the pathological junk?" Should we specify some sort of debridement handling? Cheers, Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
