OK great, I think we're on the same page. Focusing on what good actors should do with malformed arc sets is exactly the question. If we do want to keep them around & continue the chain, making sure that we fail, I still suggest the bottom up order for signing. Stripping out the malformed arc sets and restarting the chain, possibly with something like a new CV_Invalid is another possibility. This is an interesting idea, that I think I like, but do we suspect we would be removing information that somebody might find useful?
Regards, =Gene On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Kurt Andersen <ku...@drkurt.com> wrote: > >> >> 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. >> >> > Reordering shouldn't be a problem for us because it's easy to search > through a relatively short list for an ARC field bearing a particular "i=" > value. If the only thing that ever happens is reordering, we should still > be fine (a la DKIM's "h" tag). > > Duplication is arguably fine as long as the duplicate is identical to the > original, but I think once you have to go so far as to evaluate that, the > chain has actually been directly affected, and it's fine to give up. > > -MSK >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
