Re: [lamps] Fwd: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6844 (5200)

[Tim Hollebeek <[e-mail]>]

This looks good to me.  I could get behind this.

-Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Corey Bonnell [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:04 AM
> To: Tim Hollebeek <[e-mail]>; Jacob Hoffman-Andrews
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [lamps] Fwd: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6844 (5200)
> 
> After thinking about this further, I’m in favor of using semicolons to delimit
> parameters, as Tim mentioned that we likely need to continue using the
> semicolon to delimit the identifying domain name from the parameter list due
> to its current ubiquity. It would be inconsistent to use a semicolon to delimit
> the identifying domain name from the parameter list but also mandate that
> parameter name/value pairs be delimited using whitespace. That being said, I
> like the idea that non-significant whitespace can be used in records to
> improve human readability.
> 
> Given that RFC 5234 prohibits the use of implicit “linear white space” in
> section 3.1 (https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/223l-
> OOuL7oxSQZbmNPzrW-fzlB3ZyRehuXa1uhXQ_0=?d=RZrpddyRRTQ154PRoAlI-
> Q9RbRRqmTet1Xm0uCdsU_76X79txFJWMGdDB2vayT_egarHUxCPBwWT5eHf
> BNnpKlx7W1mdGFJxIUnhYLisSSX6EqRMdSKRkKNx4wnVnB7zbllNvijPQiAP0aw
> sDHbVIPazzk2B2mld5wAzznIvkCABWKNmv4EtLSB2Azz831XxmyzQpAOPgdhU
> GamB8As9HkVGdCAEm0-
> YzoAiCxR7FclB5StDbL8Rhxz6EWTqb4AvPLqa_SpYOcFuWsXrevKnJKyzleaW6qb
> Vgl8UPOOx53m6f4Rl0caquHZPVvYzzuh59qwvG64WcemTGe_h9duJ0pbCj-
> UYAwwzKOTBdAqtmAxXqS9xB80aaCuRw8cEMCdeJXpEhXH0x9p045zQRtLwqq
> BgWx9UwSIkOYJT331aaaas4Q%3D%3D&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfcreader.c
> om%2F%23rfc5234_line204), RFC 6844 must explicitly state in the production
> rules that non-significant whitespace is supported. With that in mind, I believe
> that the ABNF production rules in RFC 6844 section 5.1
> (https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/QXA3DmFxWmhgnol1OsR_jPGPFCJRny
> 0xy6bKiW3sKgo=?d=RZrpddyRRTQ154PRoAlI-
> Q9RbRRqmTet1Xm0uCdsU_76X79txFJWMGdDB2vayT_egarHUxCPBwWT5eHf
> BNnpKlx7W1mdGFJxIUnhYLisSSX6EqRMdSKRkKNx4wnVnB7zbllNvijPQiAP0aw
> sDHbVIPazzk2B2mld5wAzznIvkCABWKNmv4EtLSB2Azz831XxmyzQpAOPgdhU
> GamB8As9HkVGdCAEm0-
> YzoAiCxR7FclB5StDbL8Rhxz6EWTqb4AvPLqa_SpYOcFuWsXrevKnJKyzleaW6qb
> Vgl8UPOOx53m6f4Rl0caquHZPVvYzzuh59qwvG64WcemTGe_h9duJ0pbCj-
> UYAwwzKOTBdAqtmAxXqS9xB80aaCuRw8cEMCdeJXpEhXH0x9p045zQRtLwqq
> BgWx9UwSIkOYJT331aaaas4Q%3D%3D&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfcreader.c
> om%2F%23rfc6844_line447) for “issuevalue” should be modified to
> something similar to this:
> 
> issuevalue = *WSP [domain] *WSP [";" *WSP [parameters] *WSP]
> parameters = (parameter *WSP “;” *WSP parameters) / parameter
> parameter = tag "=" value
> tag = 1*(ALPHA / DIGIT)
> value = *(%x21-3A / %x3C-7E)
> 
> (The “parameter” and “tag” production rules are unchanged but I listed them
> here to list the relevant rules in one place.)
> 
> Note that I removed the “space” production rule, as RFC 5234 provides us
> with a nearly identical (differing only in the number of allowed repetitions, but
> the character class is the same) “WSP” rule in its core module
> (https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/-0fHBEr5CPqHK4BAN-1-SoYnA0YT-
> 6fhfpIyNPkPvE4=?d=RZrpddyRRTQ154PRoAlI-
> Q9RbRRqmTet1Xm0uCdsU_76X79txFJWMGdDB2vayT_egarHUxCPBwWT5eHf
> BNnpKlx7W1mdGFJxIUnhYLisSSX6EqRMdSKRkKNx4wnVnB7zbllNvijPQiAP0aw
> sDHbVIPazzk2B2mld5wAzznIvkCABWKNmv4EtLSB2Azz831XxmyzQpAOPgdhU
> GamB8As9HkVGdCAEm0-
> YzoAiCxR7FclB5StDbL8Rhxz6EWTqb4AvPLqa_SpYOcFuWsXrevKnJKyzleaW6qb
> Vgl8UPOOx53m6f4Rl0caquHZPVvYzzuh59qwvG64WcemTGe_h9duJ0pbCj-
> UYAwwzKOTBdAqtmAxXqS9xB80aaCuRw8cEMCdeJXpEhXH0x9p045zQRtLwqq
> BgWx9UwSIkOYJT331aaaas4Q%3D%3D&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfcreader.c
> om%2F%23rfc5234_line520). Also note that I modified the “value” rule, as we
> need to exclude the semicolon (ASCII code 0x3B) from the set of allowed
> characters in parameter values.
> 
> Thanks,
> Corey
> 
> Corey Bonnell
> Senior Software Engineer
> 
> Trustwave | SMART SECURITY ON DEMANDwww.trustwave.com
> <https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/WBsY-
> EHcHWXZ8gHVn_TTn1EioTncr2wyhIBkPnoJz5U=?d=RZrpddyRRTQ154PRoAlI-
> Q9RbRRqmTet1Xm0uCdsU_76X79txFJWMGdDB2vayT_egarHUxCPBwWT5eHf
> BNnpKlx7W1mdGFJxIUnhYLisSSX6EqRMdSKRkKNx4wnVnB7zbllNvijPQiAP0aw
> sDHbVIPazzk2B2mld5wAzznIvkCABWKNmv4EtLSB2Azz831XxmyzQpAOPgdhU
> GamB8As9HkVGdCAEm0-
> YzoAiCxR7FclB5StDbL8Rhxz6EWTqb4AvPLqa_SpYOcFuWsXrevKnJKyzleaW6qb
> Vgl8UPOOx53m6f4Rl0caquHZPVvYzzuh59qwvG64WcemTGe_h9duJ0pbCj-
> UYAwwzKOTBdAqtmAxXqS9xB80aaCuRw8cEMCdeJXpEhXH0x9p045zQRtLwqq
> BgWx9UwSIkOYJT331aaaas4Q%3D%3D&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trustwave.c
> om%2F>
> 
> 2017 Best Managed Security Service Winner – SC Media
> 
> On 12/18/17, 9:41 AM, "Spasm on behalf of Tim Hollebeek" <spasm-
> [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>     As pointed out on the cabf_validation list, the original text isn't just
>     ambiguous, the RFC contradicts itself.  I don't feel too strongly either
>     way, as long as it gets resolved soon, as property tags are about to become
>     commonly deployed (there were several proposed uses discussed at the
> Taipei
>     face-to-face meeting of the CA/Browser forum).
> 
>     I do however have a slight preference for only having a single separator
>     (whitespace), not two in order to avoid confusion about what to do about
>     whitespace after semicolons and around = signs.
> 
>     The semicolon doesn't really serve a useful purpose, though we do have to
>     keep one since there are existing CAA records out there that use it.  I'd
>     like the grammar to essentially be:
> 
>         domain ; [name = value]+
> 
>     with the clarification that whitespace is ignored.
> 
>     So my personal preference is the first style you mentioned, in line with the
>     submitted errata:
> 
>         https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/guXt-
> wbIajcv9dPXp03AETYKnnGzu7bRQAzwwoTu1BQ=?d=RZrpddyRRTQ154PRoAlI-
> Q9RbRRqmTet1Xm0uCdsU_76X79txFJWMGdDB2vayT_egarHUxCPBwWT5eHf
> BNnpKlx7W1mdGFJxIUnhYLisSSX6EqRMdSKRkKNx4wnVnB7zbllNvijPQiAP0aw
> sDHbVIPazzk2B2mld5wAzznIvkCABWKNmv4EtLSB2Azz831XxmyzQpAOPgdhU
> GamB8As9HkVGdCAEm0-
> YzoAiCxR7FclB5StDbL8Rhxz6EWTqb4AvPLqa_SpYOcFuWsXrevKnJKyzleaW6qb
> Vgl8UPOOx53m6f4Rl0caquHZPVvYzzuh59qwvG64WcemTGe_h9duJ0pbCj-
> UYAwwzKOTBdAqtmAxXqS9xB80aaCuRw8cEMCdeJXpEhXH0x9p045zQRtLwqq
> BgWx9UwSIkOYJT331aaaas4Q%3D%3D&u=http%3A%2F%2Fscanmail.trustwa
> ve.com%2F%3Fc%3D4062%26d%3DgNO32sFHeluIcLm6XdmrAg7jw4lzJFuSdg
> MZzyv9PQ%26s%3D5%26u%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexample.com IN CAA 0 issue
> "https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/WSJJP7Kr5g1Ihc2JaYcIqr4LdXmpgvuwtx
> BN746PBxk=?d=RZrpddyRRTQ154PRoAlI-
> Q9RbRRqmTet1Xm0uCdsU_76X79txFJWMGdDB2vayT_egarHUxCPBwWT5eHf
> BNnpKlx7W1mdGFJxIUnhYLisSSX6EqRMdSKRkKNx4wnVnB7zbllNvijPQiAP0aw
> sDHbVIPazzk2B2mld5wAzznIvkCABWKNmv4EtLSB2Azz831XxmyzQpAOPgdhU
> GamB8As9HkVGdCAEm0-
> YzoAiCxR7FclB5StDbL8Rhxz6EWTqb4AvPLqa_SpYOcFuWsXrevKnJKyzleaW6qb
> Vgl8UPOOx53m6f4Rl0caquHZPVvYzzuh59qwvG64WcemTGe_h9duJ0pbCj-
> UYAwwzKOTBdAqtmAxXqS9xB80aaCuRw8cEMCdeJXpEhXH0x9p045zQRtLwqq
> BgWx9UwSIkOYJT331aaaas4Q%3D%3D&u=http%3A%2F%2Fscanmail.trustwa
> ve.com%2F%3Fc%3D4062%26d%3DgNO32sFHeluIcLm6XdmrAg7jw4lzJFuSdld
> On33-
> ag%26s%3D5%26u%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fexample%252enet%253b
> foo=bar bar=qux"
> 
>     It's the style I used in my proposal for industry standard property tag
>     names on cabf_validation last week.
> 
>     -Tim
> 
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: Spasm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jacob
> Hoffman-
>     > Andrews
>     > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:06 PM
>     > To: [e-mail]
>     > Subject: Re: [lamps] Fwd: [pkix] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6844
>     (5200)
>     >
>     > On 12/08/2017 10:16 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>     > > https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/P19HMr1W_-AM1Bgx1hv9xaT-
> Y052koOWPbFvWFXceKc=?d=RZrpddyRRTQ154PRoAlI-
> Q9RbRRqmTet1Xm0uCdsU_76X79txFJWMGdDB2vayT_egarHUxCPBwWT5eHf
> BNnpKlx7W1mdGFJxIUnhYLisSSX6EqRMdSKRkKNx4wnVnB7zbllNvijPQiAP0aw
> sDHbVIPazzk2B2mld5wAzznIvkCABWKNmv4EtLSB2Azz831XxmyzQpAOPgdhU
> GamB8As9HkVGdCAEm0-
> YzoAiCxR7FclB5StDbL8Rhxz6EWTqb4AvPLqa_SpYOcFuWsXrevKnJKyzleaW6qb
> Vgl8UPOOx53m6f4Rl0caquHZPVvYzzuh59qwvG64WcemTGe_h9duJ0pbCj-
> UYAwwzKOTBdAqtmAxXqS9xB80aaCuRw8cEMCdeJXpEhXH0x9p045zQRtLwqq
> BgWx9UwSIkOYJT331aaaas4Q%3D%3D&u=http%3A%2F%2Fscanmail.trustwa
> ve.com%2F%3Fc%3D4062%26d%3DgNO32sFHeluIcLm6XdmrAg7jw4lzJFuSdlJ
> PySquaA%26s%3D5%26u%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-
> editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid5200
>     >
>     > The question here is whether CAA records with property tags should look
>     > like:
>     >
>     > https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/guXt-
> wbIajcv9dPXp03AETYKnnGzu7bRQAzwwoTu1BQ=?d=RZrpddyRRTQ154PRoAlI-
> Q9RbRRqmTet1Xm0uCdsU_76X79txFJWMGdDB2vayT_egarHUxCPBwWT5eHf
> BNnpKlx7W1mdGFJxIUnhYLisSSX6EqRMdSKRkKNx4wnVnB7zbllNvijPQiAP0aw
> sDHbVIPazzk2B2mld5wAzznIvkCABWKNmv4EtLSB2Azz831XxmyzQpAOPgdhU
> GamB8As9HkVGdCAEm0-
> YzoAiCxR7FclB5StDbL8Rhxz6EWTqb4AvPLqa_SpYOcFuWsXrevKnJKyzleaW6qb
> Vgl8UPOOx53m6f4Rl0caquHZPVvYzzuh59qwvG64WcemTGe_h9duJ0pbCj-
> UYAwwzKOTBdAqtmAxXqS9xB80aaCuRw8cEMCdeJXpEhXH0x9p045zQRtLwqq
> BgWx9UwSIkOYJT331aaaas4Q%3D%3D&u=http%3A%2F%2Fscanmail.trustwa
> ve.com%2F%3Fc%3D4062%26d%3DgNO32sFHeluIcLm6XdmrAg7jw4lzJFuSdg
> MZzyv9PQ%26s%3D5%26u%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexample.com IN CAA 0 issue
> "https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/WSJJP7Kr5g1Ihc2JaYcIqr4LdXmpgvuwtx
> BN746PBxk=?d=RZrpddyRRTQ154PRoAlI-
> Q9RbRRqmTet1Xm0uCdsU_76X79txFJWMGdDB2vayT_egarHUxCPBwWT5eHf
> BNnpKlx7W1mdGFJxIUnhYLisSSX6EqRMdSKRkKNx4wnVnB7zbllNvijPQiAP0aw
> sDHbVIPazzk2B2mld5wAzznIvkCABWKNmv4EtLSB2Azz831XxmyzQpAOPgdhU
> GamB8As9HkVGdCAEm0-
> YzoAiCxR7FclB5StDbL8Rhxz6EWTqb4AvPLqa_SpYOcFuWsXrevKnJKyzleaW6qb
> Vgl8UPOOx53m6f4Rl0caquHZPVvYzzuh59qwvG64WcemTGe_h9duJ0pbCj-
> UYAwwzKOTBdAqtmAxXqS9xB80aaCuRw8cEMCdeJXpEhXH0x9p045zQRtLwqq
> BgWx9UwSIkOYJT331aaaas4Q%3D%3D&u=http%3A%2F%2Fscanmail.trustwa
> ve.com%2F%3Fc%3D4062%26d%3DgNO32sFHeluIcLm6XdmrAg7jw4lzJFuSdld
> On33-
> ag%26s%3D5%26u%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fexample%252enet%253b
> foo=bar bar=qux"
>     >
>     > or:
>     >
>     > https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/guXt-
> wbIajcv9dPXp03AETYKnnGzu7bRQAzwwoTu1BQ=?d=RZrpddyRRTQ154PRoAlI-
> Q9RbRRqmTet1Xm0uCdsU_76X79txFJWMGdDB2vayT_egarHUxCPBwWT5eHf
> BNnpKlx7W1mdGFJxIUnhYLisSSX6EqRMdSKRkKNx4wnVnB7zbllNvijPQiAP0aw
> sDHbVIPazzk2B2mld5wAzznIvkCABWKNmv4EtLSB2Azz831XxmyzQpAOPgdhU
> GamB8As9HkVGdCAEm0-
> YzoAiCxR7FclB5StDbL8Rhxz6EWTqb4AvPLqa_SpYOcFuWsXrevKnJKyzleaW6qb
> Vgl8UPOOx53m6f4Rl0caquHZPVvYzzuh59qwvG64WcemTGe_h9duJ0pbCj-
> UYAwwzKOTBdAqtmAxXqS9xB80aaCuRw8cEMCdeJXpEhXH0x9p045zQRtLwqq
> BgWx9UwSIkOYJT331aaaas4Q%3D%3D&u=http%3A%2F%2Fscanmail.trustwa
> ve.com%2F%3Fc%3D4062%26d%3DgNO32sFHeluIcLm6XdmrAg7jw4lzJFuSdg
> MZzyv9PQ%26s%3D5%26u%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fexample.com IN CAA 0 issue
> "https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/WSJJP7Kr5g1Ihc2JaYcIqr4LdXmpgvuwtx
> BN746PBxk=?d=RZrpddyRRTQ154PRoAlI-
> Q9RbRRqmTet1Xm0uCdsU_76X79txFJWMGdDB2vayT_egarHUxCPBwWT5eHf
> BNnpKlx7W1mdGFJxIUnhYLisSSX6EqRMdSKRkKNx4wnVnB7zbllNvijPQiAP0aw
> sDHbVIPazzk2B2mld5wAzznIvkCABWKNmv4EtLSB2Azz831XxmyzQpAOPgdhU
> GamB8As9HkVGdCAEm0-
> YzoAiCxR7FclB5StDbL8Rhxz6EWTqb4AvPLqa_SpYOcFuWsXrevKnJKyzleaW6qb
> Vgl8UPOOx53m6f4Rl0caquHZPVvYzzuh59qwvG64WcemTGe_h9duJ0pbCj-
> UYAwwzKOTBdAqtmAxXqS9xB80aaCuRw8cEMCdeJXpEhXH0x9p045zQRtLwqq
> BgWx9UwSIkOYJT331aaaas4Q%3D%3D&u=http%3A%2F%2Fscanmail.trustwa
> ve.com%2F%3Fc%3D4062%26d%3DgNO32sFHeluIcLm6XdmrAg7jw4lzJFuSdld
> On33-
> ag%26s%3D5%26u%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fexample%252enet%253b
> foo=bar; bar=qux"
>     >
>     > (note the second semicolon)
>     >
>     > I think the original text is ambiguous on the point, and since property
>     tags are
>     > not yet widely deployed this is a somewhat free choice. I think the
>     version
>     > where property tags are separated by semicolons makes more sense and
> is
>     > less error prone. It also happens to be what Hugo Landau's draft for CAA
>     > Record Extensions uses:
>     > https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/oeSHiU8l3ajgJiEMVtTF83-
> EFY63Rq8bkGOhkAfEU4w=?d=RZrpddyRRTQ154PRoAlI-
> Q9RbRRqmTet1Xm0uCdsU_76X79txFJWMGdDB2vayT_egarHUxCPBwWT5eHf
> BNnpKlx7W1mdGFJxIUnhYLisSSX6EqRMdSKRkKNx4wnVnB7zbllNvijPQiAP0aw
> sDHbVIPazzk2B2mld5wAzznIvkCABWKNmv4EtLSB2Azz831XxmyzQpAOPgdhU
> GamB8As9HkVGdCAEm0-
> YzoAiCxR7FclB5StDbL8Rhxz6EWTqb4AvPLqa_SpYOcFuWsXrevKnJKyzleaW6qb
> Vgl8UPOOx53m6f4Rl0caquHZPVvYzzuh59qwvG64WcemTGe_h9duJ0pbCj-
> UYAwwzKOTBdAqtmAxXqS9xB80aaCuRw8cEMCdeJXpEhXH0x9p045zQRtLwqq
> BgWx9UwSIkOYJT331aaaas4Q%3D%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fscanmail.trustw
> ave.com%2F%3Fc%3D4062%26d%3DgNO32sFHeluIcLm6XdmrAg7jw4lzJFuSdl
> FIyn6uOA%26s%3D5%26u%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdra
> ft-ietf-acme-caa-03%23page-9
>     >
>     > And what was briefly implemented in Let's Encrypt's Boulder (since rolled
>     > back due to a bug):
>     >
>     > https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/e4GMdQoD7tFbx08-
> UGuLKKtPdCFSB5rS2W-lBYmcerE=?d=RZrpddyRRTQ154PRoAlI-
> Q9RbRRqmTet1Xm0uCdsU_76X79txFJWMGdDB2vayT_egarHUxCPBwWT5eHf
> BNnpKlx7W1mdGFJxIUnhYLisSSX6EqRMdSKRkKNx4wnVnB7zbllNvijPQiAP0aw
> sDHbVIPazzk2B2mld5wAzznIvkCABWKNmv4EtLSB2Azz831XxmyzQpAOPgdhU
> GamB8As9HkVGdCAEm0-
> YzoAiCxR7FclB5StDbL8Rhxz6EWTqb4AvPLqa_SpYOcFuWsXrevKnJKyzleaW6qb
> Vgl8UPOOx53m6f4Rl0caquHZPVvYzzuh59qwvG64WcemTGe_h9duJ0pbCj-
> UYAwwzKOTBdAqtmAxXqS9xB80aaCuRw8cEMCdeJXpEhXH0x9p045zQRtLwqq
> BgWx9UwSIkOYJT331aaaas4Q%3D%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fscanmail.trustw
> ave.com%2F%3Fc%3D4062%26d%3DgNO32sFHeluIcLm6XdmrAg7jw4lzJFuSdg
> QUz3v8bQ%26s%3D5%26u%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fletsencrypt%
> 2Fboulder%2Fpull%2F3145%2Ffiles%23diff-
>     > 3efab53f2bcc543ac2e771ec882c57c1L310
>     >
>     > So my feeling is we should reject this erratum and clarify in the other
>     > direction, requiring semicolons between property tags. Thoughts?
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Spasm mailing list
>     > [e-mail]
>     > https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/Op2fbuRdBuUkj-Y9VkPB3yT4ud-
> Nr0bBS0NRCEoC6mQ=?d=RZrpddyRRTQ154PRoAlI-
> Q9RbRRqmTet1Xm0uCdsU_76X79txFJWMGdDB2vayT_egarHUxCPBwWT5eHf
> BNnpKlx7W1mdGFJxIUnhYLisSSX6EqRMdSKRkKNx4wnVnB7zbllNvijPQiAP0aw
> sDHbVIPazzk2B2mld5wAzznIvkCABWKNmv4EtLSB2Azz831XxmyzQpAOPgdhU
> GamB8As9HkVGdCAEm0-
> YzoAiCxR7FclB5StDbL8Rhxz6EWTqb4AvPLqa_SpYOcFuWsXrevKnJKyzleaW6qb
> Vgl8UPOOx53m6f4Rl0caquHZPVvYzzuh59qwvG64WcemTGe_h9duJ0pbCj-
> UYAwwzKOTBdAqtmAxXqS9xB80aaCuRw8cEMCdeJXpEhXH0x9p045zQRtLwqq
> BgWx9UwSIkOYJT331aaaas4Q%3D%3D&u=https%3A%2F%2Fscanmail.trustw
> ave.com%2F%3Fc%3D4062%26d%3DgNO32sFHeluIcLm6XdmrAg7jw4lzJFuSdg
> ofny-
> qPw%26s%3D5%26u%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistin
> fo%2Fspasm
>