I agree that we should fix this tolerance in the bis document. tim with no hat on
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 9:48 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 2:29 AM Tõnu Tammer <tonu=40cert...@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > >> I am curious to know what the stance is on trailing whitespace within >> DMARC records. >> >> Strictly following the RFC 7489 and the formal specification in section >> 6.4, if there is no trailing dmarc-sep with the associated semicolon, >> trailing whitespace is not allowed. >> >> >> >> For example a record like: "v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100 " would be >> invalid, >> whereas "v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100 ; " would be valid. >> > > I think your interpretation is correct, that's what the specification > says. A parser would be right to reject it. > > As an implementer, I would probably tolerate this. Trailing whitespace > has almost never been something worth failing on in my experience. > > I would also suggest that the working group discuss making such tolerance > explicit in the bis document if it's not too late to add a small issue for > consideration. > > -MSK, no hat on > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
