Hi,
someone asked me about case sensitiveness of the header field name. I looked
for an ABNF in RFC6376, but only found examples and informative notes.
Is that an error worth being reported?
Ale
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mi
someone asked me about case sensitiveness of the header field name. I looked
for an ABNF in RFC6376, but only found examples and informative notes.
I was going to say that can't possibly be true, but it's true, there's no
ABNF for the header. So, for example, I don't know whether the v= field
On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:22 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
> someone asked me about case sensitiveness of the header field name. I
>> looked
>> for an ABNF in RFC6376, but only found examples and informative notes.
>>
>
> I was going to say that can't possibly be true, but it's true, there's no
> ABN
"v=1" doesn't have to come first. It just usually does. I think there was
a version of RFC4871 that did that, but then when challenged we couldn't
come up with a good reason to keep it that way.
I wonder how many DKIM libraries will accept a signature where it doesn't.
Regards,
John Levine, j
On 2/8/2018 5:22 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
someone asked me about case sensitiveness of the header field name. I
looked
for an ABNF in RFC6376, but only found examples and informative notes.
Header field name rules are in RFC 5322. That deals with case
sensitivity for field name strings. S
Header field name rules are in RFC 5322. That deals with case sensitivity
for field name strings. Section 1.2.2 provides the basis for knowing whether
a defined string is to be parsed in a case sensitive or insensitive manner.
That's right, and all of the fields defined in 5322 have case inse
On 2/8/2018 8:05 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
I'm not saying any sensible person would do that, but as far as I can
tell, that's what the spec says.
From a quick review of RFC 5322, I think you are correct. I also
believe (know) that this is not what has been intended for header field
name spe
> "v=1" doesn't have to come first. It just usually does. I think there was
> a version of RFC4871 that did that, but then when challenged we couldn't
> come up with a good reason to keep it that way.
Heh. I'm still waiting to hear a good reason as to why "v=" exists at all -
apart
from exposin
On 2/8/2018 8:17 AM, Mark Delany wrote:
"v=1" doesn't have to come first. It just usually does. I think there was
a version of RFC4871 that did that, but then when challenged we couldn't
come up with a good reason to keep it that way.
Heh. I'm still waiting to hear a good reason as to why "v=
The ones I wrote certainly didn't require v=1 to come first. ;-)
But you're right: there's probably cause to be concerned.
Tony
On 2/8/18, 10:08 AM, "ietf-dkim on behalf of John R. Levine"
wrote:
> "v=1" doesn't have to come first. It just usually does. I think there
was
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
