In article <43ae9a84-75e3-1292-d3f4-68f3a7445...@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> you write: >However I still feel like /requiring/ exact case is contrary to the idea >of "Be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what you send.".
Yup. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-iab-protocol-maintenance a/k/a "Postel was wrong". >I don't see any security implications in accepting the following: > >dmarc-version = ("v" / "V") *WSP "=" *WSP ("D" / "d") ("M" / "m") ("A" / >"a") ("R" / "r") ("C" / "c") "1" Please see the previous several dozen messages, particularly the one about the brown M&M's. If you know that someone didn't read the spec, you can only guess what else they got wrong, and you're not doing anyone a favor by doing that. >I agree that this is contrary to the letter of the specification. >However I think it is completely within the spirit. Especially when >dealing with DNS data which is inherently / invariable human entered. Once again, please try not to assume that everyone's experience is the same as yours. On my DNS server, the DMARC records are generated automatically when I add a new mail domain and their syntax is correct. (Or every DMARC record is wrong, but I would notice that pretty soon.) On the large systems which these days host most mail it's hard to see how they could do it manually. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
