On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:34 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. > [...] +1. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
