IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Possible ambiguity in description of regular expressions: [^][]

Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com> Fri, 08 January 2021 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <andrewg@andrewg.com>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 855B83A1141 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 08:55:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.361
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.361 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=andrewg.com
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 zaEp36du8bP4 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 08:55:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xen.andrewg.com (andrewg.com [178.79.140.242]) (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 810F13A113C for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 08:55:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:fc93:5820:7375:ee79:1300::1] (fred [IPv6:fc93:5820:7375:ee79:1300::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by xen.andrewg.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0A7EE5C686 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2021 16:55:04 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=andrewg.com; s=andrewg-com; t=1610124904; bh=H0Mfzh25JmtlD8Yx/sKBAd6oXUZI+oxCLmUMVAH6ctk=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=CUfAbJorqebq5at2qDk5+DlFrRtPEpascf1y5NbTeHwGf70et+P7C4XjkzyiqQBjZ c3/LLTx0GmXUIZU4oavmhYEnCvyOQwCkVv023JhZZCXjwrQs1yR9wuQEDxKxxR1Ckp G3VveoU0+WiSUS72Qy2CkkbgNsfedaJcnOS5TLNiK9OIupYQD6Q2ZOgqFpr44yxXHG DET9LFE8b1pElJ2VfDeBjxVcV0qSDrKsXxm5bWtkh6mF95H8PKgNW3arTXfHrHNMjG bAQyX2JgZUu6t7PjxsE8C1BtWEIMUY4aVuAIQqbx1D8DMkKznSp1/erEAKCB6SJ5qy LGtIPmoTLc91w==
To: openpgp@ietf.org
References: <87r1nguquq.wl-neal@walfield.org> <87tusbuwzp.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87mtxzv7mr.wl-neal@walfield.org> <877dor8kl1.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <87456fad-06cd-6605-b5d1-ea5ac49c9ee4@andrewg.com> <a061d617a22416638bf1fb0a1f7d66b7495f9b82.camel@16bits.net>
From: Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com>
Message-ID: <b7a318d1-b6d0-e71e-28fe-197923185a38@andrewg.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2021 16:55:02 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a061d617a22416638bf1fb0a1f7d66b7495f9b82.camel@16bits.net>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cJHn8zOVoARsn1k0JTJPBDED4v1YKfpeh"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/6fdhuPtbAIyEELcWaD2tyLhtvpI>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Possible ambiguity in description of regular expressions: [^][]
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2021 16:55:09 -0000

On 08/01/2021 00:29, Ángel wrote:
> Regular expressions are a little-used feature, and the "natural" way to
> write them would conform to both of those specifications. It is
> unlikely that someone would have restricted a trust value based on the
> presence of curly brackets on an User ID (they are legal in the local
> part of email addresses, even unquoted, but it would be very rare to
> find one). Equally, it would be strange to needlessly escape
> characters.

It strikes me that regexes are an overengineered solution to a narrow 
use case, and that a simple *? globbing language would be more than 
sufficient. Is anything more complex than <*@*.example.com> required in 
the real world?

-- 
Andrew Gallagher

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email