Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #42 - Expand DMARC reporting URI functionality

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 25 January 2021 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF2143A186A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:10:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key) header.d=tana.it
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bDIkhIkHB9jm for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:10:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F7883A1868 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 12:10:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1611605406; bh=eZur5Y28fp7wFQSOWnLyMjWPumoyOcS0X1q0PfXohoM=; l=659; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=AOip8kOvfsuLzGueM5yaDcK6++f0hQnWltJuvqfxn2jRb35eZaRJrbA7psALtCHT/ SdUPPm7toko0CbCxuXGXul5m0rjqF8uPCFzsK3w7TMCTLac0TuzqNIsM/LH6k72uA8 pI31kPFUkfCyb3NxThu1zm51At7Oar1bNNcm09fr6i5Pm0q2BPH4XxnmvW4Lo
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Received: from [172.25.197.111] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.111]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC053.00000000600F259D.00000FC8; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 21:10:05 +0100
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20210124184659.12DF46C068F5@ary.qy> <dd3da825-bb39-6c37-762c-39ce5422f87a@mtcc.com> <afe0e8fd-bbac-9e0d-859c-0fdfcf83978a@tana.it> <b3c5f861-2a17-afa8-5f62-e9f152b58e1f@mtcc.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <14fba490-7b6b-39bc-9a88-7a28aad5c1d5@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 21:10:05 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b3c5f861-2a17-afa8-5f62-e9f152b58e1f@mtcc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/1k9063PsZgsSg9KHkVH34ARmhy4>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #42 - Expand DMARC reporting URI functionality
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 20:10:09 -0000

On Mon 25/Jan/2021 21:07:01 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote:
> 
> On 1/25/21 11:53 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> On Sun 24/Jan/2021 19:49:34 +0100 Michael Thomas wrote:
>>> issue #99 needs to be addressed.
>>
>> Won't we put a DKIM-Signature: in the http: header?
>>
> I don't know. That would need to be specified. To me it sounds like a good 
> reason to not try to specify http especially if there doesn't seem to be any 
> clear desire for it.


Yes, it needs a spec.  It doesn't seem to be overly difficult.

If we put authentication at SHOULD, the missing spec is a good reason to skip 
signing.  Meanwhile we can try https:.


Best
Ale
--