Alessandro Vesely wrote on 2024-03-26 19:30:
No. To take several years and come up with a syntax which does not
cover all valid addresses is a sign of incompetence that this WG doesn't
deserve, IMHO. What do others think?
Let's rather switch to /[0-9a-fA-F.:]+/. Terse and correct.
I'm in favor of a brief and coarse regex, which is suitable for
detecting obvious junk. The above proposal looks good enough to me. I
wouldn't mind adding an outer bounds check, e.g.: [0-9a-fA-F.:]{3,45}
If an implementer sees merit in a comprehensive syntax check, they can
add one to their software.
Regards,
Matt
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
