On 11/17/25 16:12, Daniel K. wrote:
> Also, RFC 6068, defining the 'mailto' URI scheme, says this:
>
> local-part = dot-atom-text / quoted-string
>
> referring to RFC 5322 for the definition, which includes '+'.
>
> atext = ALPHA / DIGIT / ; Printable US-ASCII
> "!" / "#" / ; characters not including
> "$" / "%" / ; specials. Used for atoms.
> "&" / "'" /
> "*" / "+" /
> "-" / "/" /
> "=" / "?" /
> "^" / "_" /
> "`" / "{" /
> "|" / "}" /
> "~"
>
> dot-atom-text = 1*atext *("." 1*atext)
>
>
> At this point I don't think the validity of an unencoded '+' is
> disputed. The problem seems to be that the consumer of the DMARC record
> does not do any pct-decoding at all, leading to the misdirected reports.
Or, reading over and thinking about it again, maybe the consumer is just
being selective about what to decode, since '%' itself is in 'atext'.
Daniel K.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
