On 7/24/2023 11:13 AM, OLIVIER HUREAU wrote:
> If you want more than just the ABNF to defend that position, have a
look at the DKIM RFC, from which this syntax was cloned; it says:
Then wouldn't it make sense to add this specification to DMARC-bis?
+1
I'm aware it's already technically implied through the existing ABNF(s),
but given the simplicity and conciseness of the language Murray provided
from the DKIM RFC, I concur it may be worth at least stating it
explicitly for clarity in bis.
- Mark Alley
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
