On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 12:20:39PM -0700, RFC Errata System wrote:
> Original Text
> -------------
> filename = sender "!" policy-domain "!" begin-timestamp
> "!" end-timestamp [ "!" unique-id ] "." extension
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> filename = sender "!" recipient-domain "!" begin-timestamp
> "!" end-timestamp [ "!" unique-id ] "." extension
On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 08:04:55AM -0400, Deb Cooley wrote:
> Let me know soonest if this should be marked as something other than 'hold
> for document update'.
I find it hard to imagine that the MIME filename hint has much semantic
significance. This is a RECOMMENDED value, and a receiving system
should generally ignore this entirely, and process the report JSON
payload without regard to the filename.
For obvious security reasons the filename must not be trusted, and the
report might never be stored as a separate file, with results stored in
a database or transformed into an API call.
I am not even sold on the recipient domain being a better choice, but it
really should not matter, the filename is a nonce, it has no semantic
value.
--
Viktor. 🇺🇦 Слава Україні!
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
