[email protected] since the protocol has been adopted there... On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Brandon Long <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I recently wrote an authres parser and it seemed fairly easy to support >> both authres and aar, but I also wrote the parser with that expectation, >> not sure how easy/hard it would be to change that now. >> >> > The authres syntax is fairly irritating, an over abundance of allowance >> for CFWS and then using actual WS as a delimiter... that and the /version >> stuff made it hard to take short cuts. >> > > AR's CFWS use and use of WS as a delimiter is pretty much the same as most > other things in email as I recall, with the notable exception of DKIM. > > And, I'd think you can recycle it, you just pass it the part after the >> first semi-colon assuming the first stanza consists of i=N. >> > > The section defining AAR doesn't actually say that it's "i=N;" (with the > semi-colon). It should. Note though that the rest of that header field is > not pure tag=value syntax. > > So here's a bit of hand grenade: You could separate the AAR parts from the > AR parts by doing something like: > > ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; > ar=<base64-or-qp-encoded-copy-of-AR-you-want-to-preserve> > > That makes AAR into a purely tag=value syntax. If there's no need for any > part of ARC to care what the preserved thing is, this seems mighty clean. > > -MSK > I'm OK with this sort of strategy. Presumably the ar tag value would be canonicalized before encoding? --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
