[ietf-dkim] Escaping things in key/ADSP records
steve at wordtothewise.com
Mon Aug 3 10:37:02 PDT 2009
On Aug 3, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> For typical DKIM users though, commenting on an invalid field as
>> is probably invalid, but there might be an experimental I-D that's
>> using it, so maybe it's OK and receivers may or may not ignore it" is
>> going to be far more confusing than "This is wrong, fix it." - as if
>> they're using "r=" it's probably a typo or a misunderstanding, rather
>> than intentional use of an experimental field.
> How about: "The following tags are non-standard and will likely be
> ignored by most verifiers"?
> Some of Tony's examples such as "h=rsa-sha1" can certainly be
> reported as "invalid" as they are standardized tags with illegal
> values (i.e., the legal values are enumerated).
>> It might be interesting to have an alternate checker that tracks the
>> additional fields being discussed in active I-Ds too, though. Is
>> a registry of experimental fields or list of I-Ds anywhere?
> Alas, no. And it would be difficult, I think, to try to corral
> people into using one in general (though the audience is currently
> pretty small so for now it's a practical idea).
If there's no registry of fields then there's nothing to say that a
receiver isn't experimenting with an r= field that's completely
different to the r= field that Tony is publishing. So it isn't safe to
assume that a receiver that isn't using Tony's definition of r= will
ignore his r= field, rather we're solidly into undefined behavior and
something that is definitely an error in a production record (as
opposed to a record used for pre-arranged testing with a specific
More information about the ietf-dkim