On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 12:52 PM, Jeremy Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 06/25/2018 05:09 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 6/25/2018 6:03 AM, Jeremy Harris wrote: > >> On 06/25/2018 04:44 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > >>> If the creator of the information does not have a reliable way of > >>> knowing what the receiver of it will do with it -- I mean > interpretation > >>> of the information, not follow-on policy decision-making -- then it > >>> isn't a standard. > >> > >> On that view, the spec should be either > >> > >> "any tag not specified here, in any of the three ARC headers, > >> invalidates the ARC set" > >> > >> or > >> > >> "any tag not specified here, in any of the three ARC headers, > >> MUST be ignored". > > > > > > While there are some operational environments where one of these two > > choices really is appropriate -- the need for extremely rigorous control > > over the entire range of operational choice is... extreme -- this isn't > > one of them. > > Then I'm unclear what you were asking for with > > > Anything that comes close to 'do whatever you want with this > information' demonstrates NON-standardization. > > Perhaps you could suggest some text for the spec? > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc> > We already tried to walk that line in the spec. In general, any tag that does not have a defined interpretation (firstly in the ARC spec, then falling back to the DKIM spec) gets ignored with certain exceptions, such as the "h" tag in an AS header. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
