On Mon 16/Mar/2015 05:17:37 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This seems to be a bug:
>>
>> OLD:
>> dmarc-uri = URI [ "!" 1*DIGIT [ "k" / "m" / "g" / "t" ] ]
>> ; "URI" is imported from [URI]; commas (ASCII
>> ; 0x2c) and exclamation points (ASCII 0x21)
>> ; MUST be encoded; the numeric portion MUST fit
>> ; within an unsigned 64-bit integer
>> NEW:
>> dmarc-uri = URI [ "!" 1*DIGIT [ "k" / "m" / "g" / "t" ] ]
>> ; "URI" is imported from [URI]; commas (ASCII
>> ; 0x2c), exclamation points (ASCII 0x21), and
>> ; semicolons (ASCII 0x3b) MUST be percent-encoded;
>> ; the numeric portion MUST fit within an unsigned
>> ; 64-bit integer
>>
>> Is it equivalent to have, say, rua=mailto:[email protected]%[email protected]
>> and >> [email protected], mailto:[email protected]?
>>
>> Is the following meant to to be allowed?
>> mailto:[email protected]?subject=Formal%20specification%2c%20URI
>
> Section 2.2 of RFC3986 lists semi-colon as a reserved character that has to
> be percent-encoded in these URLs. We don't need to repeat it here, I think.
If the spec is going to be read by ignorants like me, it's better to repeat
than to omit. RFC3986 has a very wide scope, and uses phrases like "may (or
may not) be defined as delimiters". It says:
If data for a URI component would conflict with a reserved
character's purpose as a delimiter, then the conflicting data must be
percent-encoded before the URI is formed.
Commma and exclamation (which are sub-delims like semicolon) are apparently
used in dmarc-uri's rule. The preceding DMARC section says:
DMARC records follow the extensible "tag-value" syntax for DNS-based
key records defined in DKIM [DKIM].
However, DKIM production rules don't seem to be formally imported. If they are
imported, semicolon exclusion is implied by the definition:
VALCHAR = %x21-3A / %x3C-7E
; EXCLAMATION to TILDE except SEMICOLON
Anyway, I'd add the "percent-" word, lest anyone tries ,...
How about the other two questions? I didn't survey but a few DMARC records,
but RFC6068 exemplifies the following:
Also note that it is syntactically valid to specify both <to> and an
<hfname> whose value is "to". That is,
<mailto:[email protected],[email protected]>
is equivalent to
<mailto:[email protected],[email protected]>
is equivalent to
<mailto:[email protected][email protected]>
However, the latter form is NOT RECOMMENDED because different user
agents handle this case differently. In particular, some existing
clients ignore "to" <hfvalue>s.
Yahoo instead uses 1st level syntax:
rua=mailto:[email protected], mailto:[email protected];
Ale
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
