On Tue 28/Mar/2023 17:11:46 +0200 Brotman, Alex wrote:
I only made one minor modification there based on a ticket JohnL had submitted.
Now I read it:
ridtxt = ("<" *(ALPHA / DIGIT / "." / "-") ["@" (ALPHA / DIGIT / "." / "-")]
">") / ((ALPHA / DIGIT / "." / "-") ["@" *(ALPHA / DIGIT / "." / "-")])
It is wrong, because Subject: already has ridtxt / '<' ridtxt '>', so we're
allowing <<foo@bar>>. In addition, a star (*) is missing for the second (ALPHA...
Couldn't we import RFC 5322's dot-atom-text rather than reinventing the wheel?
They have:
message-id = "Message-ID:" msg-id CRLF
msg-id = [CFWS] "<" id-left "@" id-right ">" [CFWS]
id-left = dot-atom-text / obs-id-left
id-right = dot-atom-text / no-fold-literal / obs-id-right
Indeed, Message-Id: is the header where that value should've been specified.
Using the Subject: is a run-of-the-mill expedient for those who are unable to
set Message-Id:. Now that is downgraded to MAY...
Section 2.1.3, confusingly mentioning where those unique IDs are specified,
remains distant from Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 where the coincidence with the
filename and with the <report_id> element in the content is given. Shouldn't
they be collapsed into a single section?
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
