Subject: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC spec - brief feedback around GZIP

From: Tomki Camp <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:11:11 -0700

Based on our work importing gzipped aggregate data sent over to Agari, our
experience and investigation indicated to us that the spec is a bit
misleading here:

====
     extension = "xml" / "gzip"

   For the GZIP file itself, the filename extension MUST be "gz"; for
   the XML report, the extension MUST be "xml".
====
  
because on one hand it says the extension can be gzip but then immediately
says for a gzip file the extension must be '.gz'.  (note that gunzip will
not normally succeed with a .gzip extension)

Also, it should probably be permitted that a double extension such as
.xml.gz appear.

Regards,
--
Tomki Camp, Agari Director of Support
[email-masked] l M: 415.779.2854 l www.agari.com <http://www.agari.com/>
Learn who is most vulnerable to cybercrime in the Agari Q2 TrustIndex here
<http://info.agari.com/agari-email-trust-index-q2-2013>
Sign up for our webinar 8 Steps to DMARC here
<http://info.agari.com/agari-weekly-webinar-sign-up>

---

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 00:40:12 +0000

+1

On Aug 30, 2013, at 12:11 PM, Tomki Camp <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Based on our work importing gzipped aggregate data sent over to Agari, our experience and investigation indicated to us that the spec is a bit misleading here:
> 
> ====
> because on one hand it says the extension can be gzip but then immediately says for a gzip file the extension must be '.gz'.  (note that gunzip will not normally succeed with a .gzip extension)
> 
> Also, it should probably be permitted that a double extension such as .xml.gz appear.
> 
>