On Sun 17/Nov/2025 17:27:38 +0100 Daniel K. wrote:
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'.
It might be helpful to note that exclamation points no longer have any
particular meaning in the upcoming standard, so DMARC's URIs are plain URIs:
dmarc-uri = URI
; "URI" is imported from [RFC3986];
; commas (ASCII 0x2C) and exclamation
; points (ASCII 0x21) MUST be
; encoded
obs-dmarc-uri = dmarc-uri obs-dmarc-report-size
; Obsolete syntax, reporters should ignore the
; obs-dmarc-report-size if it is found in a DMARC Policy Record.
obs-dmarc-report-size = "!" 1*DIGIT [ "k" / "m" / "g" / "t" ]
And Appendix C.4 says "In addition, the ability to specify a maximum report size in
the DMARC URI has been removed."
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
