That sounds like I should reject it? Deb
On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 9:49 AM Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] >
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
