[spfbis] Question regarding RFC 7208
Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com> Sun, 22 July 2018 19:25 UTC
Return-Path: <poccil14@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B1E130FFA for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 12:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 4K5qKs7T2c3L for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 12:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x229.google.com (mail-yw0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14FDE130FF5 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 12:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x229.google.com with SMTP id l189-v6so6115381ywb.10 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 12:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:mime-version:to:from:subject:date:importance; bh=mj4j6qnF9GaqiTnobDo/fBSPY16aEUjineZmnxfeQy8=; b=TIRMmZt2s1ANuwyO3aZFJ33ZD09yLyreY9x1WAopMXEEw47xRB1/xnxySOui9PwcpX 4yewvqqLlUqDP11999cMa34EGj0a/zXJMULUNYlh/MCMfRiMUgchiEleXE1kjiK0WvAF x+I7A1P1nHyaZ1KLbq246Z4hC/LAOWMjdUC3OcnSgXseBSVTU9Rx45DUsBXOoecmz9b0 ra49LcJVKWbTzXb1x198micC97LvXa/QcyHOXe/k3q1g63StO7pMK4GtI9h/eQstPPDg n9N0JZnE1CEk5F/tz2oYSmIv0CI7u0o8/iUR5GIqlA6JIcJWszClfk1avhgZUSkzdb0/ i9Ww==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:mime-version:to:from:subject:date :importance; bh=mj4j6qnF9GaqiTnobDo/fBSPY16aEUjineZmnxfeQy8=; b=IPxrKasZNVBhM5HXePhCcuNIIKB9DCGU55XnziCkEwaJl4z79+xy8wEgU6CWYWtJRu KtL4NTfZAGijIMGv0shwo8HtaBNFa7NrUxdBbKox+dIbAdp9fLRjHwqyBGY0scmqiv7b oUKjgQUaqi0vA1U2XMlpAoQuFBgmBTVJoxJIeknqpdoLXcEAE2xNjTheQLKjfTPlnYqf +hh6lJjs3hZ2l5Xyuc7J/Y7Q6OWmcFRbDfrDcUXJSi1FNDV2A65yQMZUENCTnKEd/VMx UWNAutgrzGyfxpG8Wf1wRYKZP9beNLJnUH769Ge4z9WXRulMAPEND2qGi/nJ9MLLjSf1 zWgw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlFgZVIH72SF2dEs+5NulF0mNRkSqUEfQEmLC3+5tpFQn83n/hsV /wr7ZoDw1KNCy/w1mg32doQfPCfx
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcMIAyMyQBzUl5Jm1DK8m5wWvkzwwh4jujs9ym9Le0NwN21Ez8+jl42C0pEaVeFKsVSwyb9Lw==
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:f245:: with SMTP id b66-v6mr5361381ywf.473.1532287500038; Sun, 22 Jul 2018 12:25:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:192:4e00:596:22:8b71:4eb9:6006? ([2601:192:4e00:596:22:8b71:4eb9:6006]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b11-v6sm7090095ywa.46.2018.07.22.12.24.58 for <spfbis@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 22 Jul 2018 12:24:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5b54da0b.1c69fb81.14020.81f2@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "spfbis@ietf.org" <spfbis@ietf.org>
From: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 15:24:59 -0400
Importance: normal
X-Priority: 3
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_C160E97F-C391-49DE-B049-B7AFE8739D72_"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/BYrDQ45HgFf6lJ-lpRqpVDRQM_U>
Subject: [spfbis] Question regarding RFC 7208
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spfbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2018 19:25:03 -0000
RFC 7208 includes the following ABNF for the Received-SPF header field:
header-field = "Received-SPF:" [CFWS] result FWS [comment FWS]
[ key-value-list ] CRLF
As specified, however, this ABNF doesn't allow a header field value like result-FWS-comment with no FWS or key-value-list following it, a header field value which occurs very often in Received-SPF header fields I see in practice. (Note that FWS must contain at least one white space.)
An ABNF like the following would better follow practice in implementations.
header-field = "Received-SPF:" [CFWS] result [ FWS comment ]
[ FWS key-value-list ] [FWS] CRLF
Is a header field parser allowed to be so robust as to use the latter ABNF to parse the Received-SPF header field? Is a correction to use that ABNF within the scope of an erratum to RFC 7208?
(In addition, many cases I've seen include an IPv6 address in the client-ip parameter, which includes colons, without that address being a "quoted-string" or fitting the production "dot-atom". But this issue can wait until I get answers on the main issue I raised in this message.)
--Peter
- [spfbis] Question regarding RFC 7208 Peter Occil
- Re: [spfbis] Question regarding RFC 7208 John Levine