Re: [dmarc-ietf] Nitpicky questions about DMARC record syntax

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 16 January 2019 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09BD412894E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 07:52:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=iKz6KHg8; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=YVtNck2k
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LHuN5nZ_Nvs9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 07:52:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B9FE127B4C for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 07:52:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 46868 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2019 15:52:37 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=b711.5c3f5345.k1901; bh=9hR1gBmMYJ4tt6kEFyszDLR/eveesMh0SPaX33nRg00=; b=iKz6KHg8cauZhem6uZiaqQ1zmPlDgiFP/OZllQH+DEfqW6Ejhp9gOcyY9b7mQNYGgvmxU4xAL59NUbaFfc6puZn1JgIU1LA1SN8Z7I7gkJbG/A6u5zqRZigcF/Tap685uaRpW5m7LfTx4UxGm7Ya6QRn57Dw9lk6FmUiew9Q29B+SRxKT2CsV8zJfx7yAwrShE8Sfdrw7DOu6eMPAOfDfhoFjeAZyOksPHyPdU/rSQ+Y/cXkyNkpm9YW5r3BNPlM
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=b711.5c3f5345.k1901; bh=9hR1gBmMYJ4tt6kEFyszDLR/eveesMh0SPaX33nRg00=; b=YVtNck2kMNPP4cbUIVJeUOf+PlHUvIIMq/zcrRI06qsD7Tm/ifVtzFXmFB0+ndzVRgnsVZcLwz0llQWbYiOkq86Ye48+2ygPuP3iHWcUt8TOzsz0xPbZRsPQZMUxSN4p/FBA6JVVZBnQBqXwYx33PnqER3iNJ5Yg9kdOkMBwG5XynwKygd4qgQkiQ880fS9WyBdQc61h041Q2SA880UyJYrtV/gGPEHa/VU0thxtkrzcE9zMq+zeKdDPbFf9tMOn
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 16 Jan 2019 15:52:37 -0000
Date: 16 Jan 2019 10:52:36 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1901161050550.36401@ary.qy>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <babe5ec6-9ceb-c7e1-1758-8dc20d116b55@gmail.com>
References: <20190116005804.A0A80200CACDA9@ary.qy> <b6d9024b-8a88-66fb-cfe7-800ee463c01c@gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1901161029520.36401@ary.qy> <babe5ec6-9ceb-c7e1-1758-8dc20d116b55@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/_fHTPPcRYkt2GBaMQP9dYnkOdsc>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Nitpicky questions about DMARC record syntax
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:52:40 -0000

> The ABNF rule I included, and the one that cites it (dmarc-record) do not 
> show any white space permitted before the 'v', so no it's not legal.

Ah, now that I look at it again, I see that the dmarc-record rule is the 
one that matters here, since it allows WSP after the version but not 
before.

OK, they're all broken.  That's what I'd sort of hoped.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly