On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 8:37 AM Mark Alley <mark.alley= 40tekmarc....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> From my understanding, that would most likely result in a permerror code > for evaluation, given that's not syntactically valid per the ABNF for the > dmarc-record, see below where it only shows each tag once from section 6.4 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7489#section-6.4> in 7489. > > In DMARCbis, I don't see this particular table in section 5.4 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-28#section-5.4>, > but given the tags are all mentioned explicitly once in both ABNFs, it > would imply they're expected only once in the record, otherwise, permerror; > But I'll defer to the authors if that's correct. > Correct, the ABNF doesn't allow this construction, so it's a syntax error. If you want more than just the ABNF to defend that position, have a look at the DKIM RFC, from which this syntax was cloned; it says: Tags with duplicate names MUST NOT occur within a single tag-list; if a tag name does occur more than once, the entire tag-list is invalid. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
