Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jumping the Gun
On Thu 26/Oct/2023 09:16:58 +0200 Olivier Hureau wrote: I assume there is a semicolon such as 't=y; pct=0' As unknown tags must be ignore in both RFC 7489 and dmarcbis : the unknown tag "t" must be ignored by an RFC 7489 parser. Same for a dmarcbis parser, as the pct tag does not exist anymore, the parser must ignore "pct". If it is a backward-compatible parser, I would personally ignore the oldest tags : pct. Correct. That consideration invalidates a sentence of the article, which was not taken from Appendix A.7: Introducing the “t” tag simplifies the DMARC policy by reducing the number of available tags and values. Best Ale -- ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jumping the Gun
They posted it on their corporate blog, too... https://powerdmarc.com/t-replaces-pct-in-dmarcbis/ On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, at 11:06 PM, Todd Herr wrote: > Someone posting at Security Boulevard has decreed that DMARCbis (at least the > t= tag parts of it) are now codified: > > https://securityboulevard.com/2023/10/dmarc-t-tag-replaces-pct-in-dmarcbis/ > > This person did a fantastic job of cutting and pasting from DMARCbis to > "create" their "content". > > -- > > > *Todd Herr *** | Technical Director, Standards & Ecosystem > *e:* todd.h...@valimail.com > *p:* 703-220-4153 > *m:* 703.220.4153 > > This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or > proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) > authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient > you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of > the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be > unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and > then delete it from your system. > > ___ > 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
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jumping the Gun
On 26/10/2023 07:25, Mark Alley wrote: On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 8:25 PM Jesse Thompson wrote: Is it advisable to use "t=y pct=0" for backwards compatibility? I'm curious about this as well. I imagine implementation experience with this will vary widely because there's unfortunately no shortage of receivers rolling non-standard DMARC evaluation logic with liberal interpretations of expected syntax and tags, even though the ABNF and section 5.3 are explicit with instruction on how to proceed in those cases. - Mark Alley I assume there is a semicolon such as 't=y; pct=0' As unknown tags must be ignore in both RFC 7489 and dmarcbis : the unknown tag "t" must be ignored by an RFC 7489 parser. Same for a dmarcbis parser, as the pct tag does not exist anymore, the parser must ignore "pct". If it is a backward-compatible parser, I would personally ignore the oldest tags : pct. Regards, Olivier OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jumping the Gun
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 8:25 PM Jesse Thompson wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, at 4:06 PM, Todd Herr wrote: > > Someone posting at Security Boulevard has decreed that DMARCbis (at least > the t= tag parts of it) are now codified: > > https://securityboulevard.com/2023/10/dmarc-t-tag-replaces-pct-in-dmarcbis/ > > This person did a fantastic job of cutting and pasting from DMARCbis to > "create" their "content". > > > It's a good summary IMO > The article was created using plagiarized non-IETF/RFC credited text from the DMARCbis appendix A.7, which is a point I think Todd was trying to make. > Is it advisable to use "t=y pct=0" for backwards compatibility? > I'm curious about this as well. I imagine implementation experience with this will vary widely because there's unfortunately no shortage of receivers rolling non-standard DMARC evaluation logic with liberal interpretations of expected syntax and tags, even though the ABNF and section 5.3 are explicit with instruction on how to proceed in those cases. - Mark Alley ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Jumping the Gun
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023, at 4:06 PM, Todd Herr wrote: > Someone posting at Security Boulevard has decreed that DMARCbis (at least the > t= tag parts of it) are now codified: > > https://securityboulevard.com/2023/10/dmarc-t-tag-replaces-pct-in-dmarcbis/ > > This person did a fantastic job of cutting and pasting from DMARCbis to > "create" their "content". It's a good summary IMO Is it advisable to use "t=y pct=0" for backwards compatibility? Jesse ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
[dmarc-ietf] Jumping the Gun
Someone posting at Security Boulevard has decreed that DMARCbis (at least the t= tag parts of it) are now codified: https://securityboulevard.com/2023/10/dmarc-t-tag-replaces-pct-in-dmarcbis/ This person did a fantastic job of cutting and pasting from DMARCbis to "create" their "content". -- *Todd Herr * | Technical Director, Standards & Ecosystem *e:* todd.h...@valimail.com *p:* 703-220-4153 *m:* 703.220.4153 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system. ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
