In article <cantlugmzj+cfsjmc9xht0x3f5f_epjfcvw+5bejyxlxpdo5...@mail.gmail.com> you write: >I'm currently working on a test suite for ARC, and have run into a few >areas in the draft that could use some clarification, mostly with regards >to section 5.2.1, which seems like it needs a non-trivial update. I've run >into the following issues: > >- Can messages with violations in their ARC sets(duplicate/malformed i= >values, etc), still be considered valid, assuming they pass the chain >validation algorithm under the given ordering? >- Similarly, can messages with completely duplicate ARC sets still be >considered valid?
My advice is to fail them all, since that's the way to get the message back to MTA authors to fix buggy ARC code. Perhaps at some time in the future we will see consistent breakage due to legacy non-ARC code that we can recognize as broken but legit, and we can agree to do workarounds for them. But at this point, all the ARC code is new, all of it should work, and if it doesn't, the people who can fix it are still around to make the fixes. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
