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

Grant Taylor <> Wed, 16 January 2019 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6882C130E69 for <>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:35:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jsN2H7ZlmDdI for <>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:34:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2600:3c00:e000:1e9::8849]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F69A130E62 for <>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 10:34:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Contact-TNet-Consulting-Abuse-for-assistance by (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3) with ESMTPSA id x0GIYusp014467 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <>; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:34:57 -0600
ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v0.1.0 x0GIYusp014467
Authentication-Results:; arc=none
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256;; s=2015; t=1547663697; cv=none; b=qGn8H+Pow+tYGNs1n1ho38shPHDEydH67sjaFJJJ5/sdMDHeGfKhXVxrPywJbBQDccRElCtIhEXqk/0xaJpfyIuBAu4xGnuG8wvZIhKb4CU4m8vSVCz/XoMZymp8ChPb8yx0WUI0ZQFQqXGDjdv7XDhGsbwGQ+SkfPod6OvH73g=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256;; s=2015; t=1547663697; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Y9nePK6DSaTzi3qjQZDm3DQEDDGxYSzHH6P7kfQUbG4=; h=DKIM-Signature:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=j8Gvxrbf/qLnCn0HS5thllAdiKc+AqEtcbw3sg7KEiSoJpV3BxT87tPRXQ+C0smy3rgwszAUzAFbUHkSDgq1peGyHhfLQT0G4ThW2rlTN0i+juDrqjwdNgrFEOeKf7ifWWOxlv6geX6DoFjhmJPCwaMInd8h2p1TgXdSbDqTBd4=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1;; none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=2015; t=1547663697; bh=Y9nePK6DSaTzi3qjQZDm3DQEDDGxYSzHH6P7kfQUbG4=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent: MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Cc:Content-Disposition: Content-Language:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Date:From: In-Reply-To:Message-ID:MIME-Version:References:Reply-To: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Sender:Subject:To: User-Agent; b=MfjtEU6uIJ0qa2qLSVLeVZzzS01pZsBlnmZmxcH5JrGZlFfDP5Ill3iGJnkqLFkig /S0+pRG63LFWOtqrMB+1Xzr8Svi7zjtsY2AJZDSpYlu823EWf+HHtd1lKLICU1/c7o i01OE+Kud10rh47Tr/HlQpY2o27ne9b8SJOdPOn0=
References: <20190116005804.A0A80200CACDA9@ary.qy> <> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1901161029520.36401@ary.qy> <> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1901161050550.36401@ary.qy> <> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1901161222030.38502@ary.qy>
From: Grant Taylor <>
Organization: TNet Consulting
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 11:34:56 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1901161222030.38502@ary.qy>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms000203050700020301010505"
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 18:35:03 -0000

On 01/16/2019 10:26 AM, John R Levine wrote:
> Maybe, but that's not what standards are about.  The point of a standard 
> is to say here's what you do if you want to interoperate.  I have never 
> found it productive to speculate about what you might or might not want 
> to do when you run into people who didn't read the spec.

I agree with you conceptually.

However I feel like rejecting things because of additional white space 
(in front of v=...) or the wrong case is being a little bit pedantic.

Rather, I think that if removing a spurious / leading space or folding 
case causes the DMARC record to be valid, it behooves us to tolerate 
such minor errors.

I don't want to be so pedantic that people push back on adopting what I 
(and I assume others) think is a good technology.

Is doing so against the letter of the specification, absolutely.  Is it 
within the spirit of the specification, I think so.

Grant. . . .
unix || die