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

Dave Crocker <> Wed, 16 January 2019 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 637E2131142 for <>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:00:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nz7KDveu5nBu for <>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:00:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EFA5131139 for <>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:00:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id r62so4267030oie.1 for <>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:00:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UjjEF05rHXwnwXX4nxtKle5/2xRM5cKlhz2Rdf/nFso=; b=KwAAhyCk9wO3GxBSgcGoa4NJoStvyV+9hgYBE9O8B5W8NEq4ogh9ysIOFOaTWQ/wu6 BbLMjET1Okacy0gQ81oTpaszgLHW1DC9uZw0tA3+aTULvVj2Ie4NZMrrT5imbd03iCK6 azYDuDL/O/yPkDqLJbNpCQMAtKBSv9L917VGWbSNnqfx6dAbe8dEmQ369P18dJCOH63G BNXCTpr2ssQqMKkqbn4JI909jbZFQwRD3nXmD8Hp4Fmy4tVoMlCPjHKEMoqB8ObGvkQb mVTskZyykQ9QBPfK2rFlr7hJskG3OWxV+JOVhqxCIPbR4Au/6CuTgqN67/fZTQzvqRVC aj4w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=UjjEF05rHXwnwXX4nxtKle5/2xRM5cKlhz2Rdf/nFso=; b=dg1iS7fsBhlVoOYxBY/5WIKMv54BWMpgc4s5mBHEurA0XRoSUbLVqHTbSyxsTOE6V7 aRHGovmD//EmlgLwgYQR/LNwTQz/rpGLeqPRB+L0B6YXaB2ylcSPfXQJQNDPg6M77nva DCyFeyBj7qlE6UK9pNGC+3exKyU35JmhLy9uunZG1WqcxFFjBrmzVKtT6rZZ3dtQ9rxk a+TLbyG6MD/vW6IdNgjmyuWuTH1Fg2i/nSQHTutPy54I8pnh8tpLdoddqF/BkIqjxFiW BwLbSnC3824bK3xwC9uLJ7kbGJPyZqOophEA5xLbLpe8xFnwcQPjFbzYNVCFa26UM716 UGSg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukfMQ6iGyMJNFjWLtrAA2tnjStGjQ8cAPtwFLBWqTyYbMvFbVUbM Drt9JcGviDbXC0g+uL6pbV2nuWpI
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN5d7NuClYlFcGDYLhcA+2nI5i9YkMDRoj/nOjRVILK0JguVrLv6+vAt4tpL02xHjfv11qa/3Q==
X-Received: by 2002:aca:5406:: with SMTP id i6mr1683288oib.344.1547668817335; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:00:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 75sm5370032otc.67.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:00:16 -0800 (PST)
To: John Levine <>,
References: <20190116191824.0E64F200CC135A@ary.qy>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:00:13 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190116191824.0E64F200CC135A@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Nitpicky questions about DMARC record syntax
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 20:00:27 -0000

On 1/16/2019 11:18 AM, John Levine wrote:
> Remember, that if your software rewrites an invalid record into a
> correct one, you are trying to read the mind of the person who wrote
> the misformed record.

To emphasize a point you made earlier:  There are many, small 
adjustments that a receiver might make, with the intention of operating 
more robustly.  The current examples certainly quality as small and 
seemingly innocuous.  But the earlier point was that one deviation from 
the specification bodes ill for more important questions of conformance...

If they didn't read this part carefully, why believe they read other 
parts more carefully?


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking