This is the relevant ABNF:
dmarc-subject = %x52.65.70.6f.72.74 1*FWS ; "Report"
%x44.6f.6d.61.69.6e.3a 1*FWS ; "Domain:"
domain-name 1*FWS ; from RFC6376
%x53.75.62.6d.69.74.74.65.72.3a ; "Submitter:"
1*FWS domain-name 1*FWS
%x52.65.70.6f.72.74.2d.49.44.3a ; "Report-ID:"
msg-id ; from RFC5322
It is not case-insensitive, although I am surprised that anybody cares about
the lower case 'd' in Google's reports. But it is nice to know that when I
caught it in ours in beta-testing this was not as pointless as it seemed at the
time.
Elizabeth
On Aug 10, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday, August 10, 2012 11:17:15 PM Andreas Schulze wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> what was the intention behind the definition of a subject for dmarc
>> aggregated reports? draft-dmarc-base-00-02, Page 33 contain:
>> "The RFC5322.Subject field for individual report submissions SHOULD conform
>> to the following ABNF:"
>>
>> AOL does not honor the "SHOULD" at all, for example.
>> Google use "Report domain" instead "Report Domain". (lowercase d in domain)
>> Would be intersting to know, why!
>
> ABNF is case insensitive.
>
> Scott K
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
>
> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms
> (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
_______________________________________________
dmarc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss
NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms
(http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
