As an owner of some of that ARC code, I'm with John here - if I'm broke/malformed, fail the message and tell me so I can try to fix it.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:34 PM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > In article <CANtLugMzj+cfSjmC9XHt0X3f5f_epjfCVw+5bEjYxLXpdo5Z_g@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 > -- PAUL ROCK Principal Software Engineer | AOL Mail P: 703-265-5734 | C: 703-980-8380 AIM: paulsrock 22070 Broderick Dr.| Dulles, VA | 20166-9305
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
