On Wed 05/Jun/2024 11:58:53 +0200 John Levine via mailop wrote:
It appears that Tobias Fiebig via mailop <tob...@fiebig.nl> said:
Well, that would then be rspamd and the python email parser; Question
is whether that would qualify as a bug, i.e., 'should not validate'; My
understanding would be more in a 'be liberal in what you accept and
conservative and what you send'-sense, though; I.e., even though not
technically allowed no harm in validating.
That's a common misunderstanding of the robustness principle. You
should be liberal in what you accept *when the spec is ambiguous.*
Other than that you should be prepared for people to send you any
arbitrary garbage so you can reject it.
In this case, if DKIM validators correctly rejected the invalid
signatures, this mistake would have been caught and fixed more
quickly.
Would it? That certainly depends on the ability of the signer to understand
the reason a message bounced (assuming that a "fail" would have triggered a
bounce.) Unlikely.
There is a field in DMARC report where a generator can put a human readable
sentence to describe DKIM verification results. If I were Slavko I'd fix
rspamd by adding bug reporting (if it's not already there) rather than removing
2047-decoding. Still, I wonder whether any report consumer highlights messages
containing (new) human readable fields...
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
