Moin, On Tue, 2025-11-11 at 16:18 -0500, John Levine via mailop wrote: > It appears that Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop <[email protected]> said: > > Dnia 11.11.2025 o godz. 16:28:27 Viktor Dukhovni via mailop pisze: > > > > Now I am wondering, though, how an implementation should treat > > > > such a > > > > whitespace. > > > > > > As they see fit. The input lies outside the specification, and > > > it is up > > > to the implementation to choose to play BoFH or adopt a more > > > forgiving > > > posture. > > > > When in doubt, it's best to remember Postel's rule: be conservative > > in what > > you send, be liberal in what you accept... > > But even better to remember the reat of it "when the speficication is > unclear."
Thanks for the input. Given that this is for the stalemarc service, i.e., indeed in the context of DMARC/DNS, I think the most sensible thing is going with Viktor's suggestion; After all, it might make sense to test the RUA, as some other implementations may also decide to ignore the whitespace. With best regards, Tobias _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list [email protected] https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
