IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definition of "value" in RFC8601

Damian Lukowski <rfc@arcsin.de> Tue, 31 March 2020 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc@arcsin.de>
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 9F5A63A25F6 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arcsin.de
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 CHhPLpX8CisB for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sigil.arcsin.de (sigil.arcsin.de [46.38.233.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 163F43A25F5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:56:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=arcsin.de; h= content-language:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :content-type:in-reply-to:mime-version:date:date:message-id:from :from:references:subject:subject:x-amavis-category; s=dkim01; t= 1585677361; x=1587491762; bh=pLKguN7HPXWtr88qTrdyTAiObTi9ev12uX9 D6iyUbiY=; b=kT7NjGKmtMgkoMJwD4M5BPEUDP2KESUoWQ5LJLCqaln+0L05us3 Cagykq/uovwkPCMJabgjzRk1sg++zNaGlvtm8YFq2Mw9vPyrqFZe3Y7epyNcKOMq +8j99s4ADsUmWchmmLUHn5UwQeMZW6WQDrA7visQPwrU5uZdSRSBMbKo=
X-Amavis-Category: sigil.arcsin.de; category=CleanTag
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20200331165652.84C5916D54B5@ary.qy>
From: Damian Lukowski <rfc@arcsin.de>
Message-ID: <75744c3b-bc2b-790e-a865-2bdd61ec3cc4@arcsin.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:55:36 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200331165652.84C5916D54B5@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/qwOcN_HoLT1h08cXr4YlkhorzRE>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Definition of "value" in RFC8601
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: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:56:05 -0000

> I don't see any reason to exclude them.  We could do this:
>
>       autbserv-id     = sub-domain *("." sub-domain)
>
> Where sub-domain is imported from 5321 for ASCII mail and 6531 for EAI mail.

Does this mean that a parser would need to know if the message has been
sent with SMTPUTF8 in order to pass or refute U-labels?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email