From my understanding, that would most likely result in a permerror
code for evaluation, given that's not syntactically valid per the ABNF
for the dmarc-record, see below where it only shows each tag once from
section 6.4 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7489#section-6.4>
in 7489.
In DMARCbis, I don't see this particular table in section 5.4
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-28#section-5.4>,
but given the tags are all mentioned explicitly once in both ABNFs, it
would imply they're expected only once in the record, otherwise,
permerror; But I'll defer to the authors if that's correct.
dmarc-record = dmarc-version dmarc-sep
[dmarc-request]
[dmarc-sep dmarc-srequest]
[dmarc-sep dmarc-auri]
[dmarc-sep dmarc-furi]
[dmarc-sep dmarc-adkim]
[dmarc-sep dmarc-aspf]
[dmarc-sep dmarc-ainterval]
[dmarc-sep dmarc-fo]
[dmarc-sep dmarc-rfmt]
[dmarc-sep dmarc-percent]
[dmarc-sep]
; components other than dmarc-version and
; dmarc-request may appear in any order
- Mark Alley
On 7/24/2023 10:05 AM, OLIVIER HUREAU wrote:
I am wondering how a parser should behave when the record contains two
identical tags.
i.e: 'v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:t...@example.org;
rua=mailto:t...@example.com;'
While RFC 7489 and DMARC-bis state that any unknown tags must be
ignored, I have not found any specifications about identical tags.
Should we take into consideration the first tag? The second? Both? or
ignore both?
Best,
Olivier
_______________________________________________
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
