Fine with me, just wanted to ask the question.
-MSK, hatless
On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 1:48 PM Barry Leiba wrote:
> Indeed. We can do what we've done in other cases: create a registry
> if/when we add something else later.
>
> Barry
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 4:11 PM Scott Kitterman
> wrote:
>
Indeed. We can do what we've done in other cases: create a registry
if/when we add something else later.
Barry
On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 4:11 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>
>
> On August 7, 2023 7:47:03 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy"
> wrote:
> >On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 1:09 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
On August 7, 2023 7:47:03 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy"
wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 1:09 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>> Based on the ABNF in -28, how about something like this:
>>
>>
>> dmarc-method = "dkim" / "spf"
>>
>> dmarc-auth = "auth" equals dmarc-method *(*WSP "," *WSP dmarc-method)
On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 1:09 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Based on the ABNF in -28, how about something like this:
>
>
> dmarc-method = "dkim" / "spf"
>
> dmarc-auth = "auth" equals dmarc-method *(*WSP "," *WSP dmarc-method)
>
>
> I think this "should"(*) allow for all permutations but also
On Mon 07/Aug/2023 14:27:53 + Barry Leiba wrote:
One last thing, how about directly assessing extensibility?
dmarc-method = %s"dkim" / %s"spf" / dmarc-value
First, why the "%s"? I see no reason to make the method name case sensitive.
My bad. I seemed to recall that RFC 7489 specified
> One last thing, how about directly assessing extensibility?
>
> dmarc-method = %s"dkim" / %s"spf" / dmarc-value
First, why the "%s"? I see no reason to make the method name case sensitive.
Second, there's no need for "dmarc-value". With Tim's original proposal:
> dmarc-method = "dkim" /
