Dave Crocker wrote:
header = "Authentication-Results:" [CFWS] authserv-id
[CFWS [version]]
*( ";" methodspec
*( CFWS reasonspec )
*( CFWS propspec
) [CFWS] ) CRLF
reasonspec = "reason=" dkim-quoted-printable
A bit of trivial:
is there a reason for making the optional parameters order-dependent, given
that
they are self-labeing (and even can occur multiple times)?
If not, I suggest:
> *( ";" methodspec
> *( CFWS (reasonspec / propspec ) [CFWS] ) CRLF
+1
I should also ask: is it really ok to have a methodspec and no reasonspec or
propspec? That's what the current abnf allows, but I'm not sure I understand
the semantics.
For many failure cases, there's no discernible property to report on.
dkim=hardfail reason=d=_and_i=_parameters_missing
dkim=none
My developers asked me an almost identical question just yesterday. ;-)
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html