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

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 26 January 2021 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
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 ADD753A0D60 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:38:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=LyXqLczA; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=jxzJr2ai
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 I9AxJFcwwarf for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:38:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 E39C13A0CFE for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:38:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 74901 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2021 17:37:58 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=12490.60105376.k2101; bh=73YXFIW0MfxOm5+hZHl+QZTgtmXzzvqfFr4eUMOQVwQ=; b=LyXqLczAPV5N+C0BmG12bUHbaQwmTRPNzQ1wYdPAHnXPibgOY6DTQRYzTBO/opdcBnDAMEjSUWIJG8LmQPPsHUYH4DybI6hPpUMehhBjOv+u55GA4Y4FIRJ0CB6tqt5DQlDakzHNkB8Nktph/NPPZ08nZnH6vgpo/q7GPYSMRKLVrR1eQ9uCYzsiy8mnUwFHK1FmCH2zsWgYmL3lW12U8YwrVaz8aZ9YK9ULAFpSICLdDAqTclOCyHL7noEavPIvd36JRnSBvg3NmddUjWZe7IbbuUo4hpA4uiski8BpYWw+DSlsGgPngqbj9KNr1MYTWqdEEI6SCWw0z0lOD9uzOw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=12490.60105376.k2101; bh=73YXFIW0MfxOm5+hZHl+QZTgtmXzzvqfFr4eUMOQVwQ=; b=jxzJr2ai6LdUqDjSmTq/45h0wHsOoiExz+u8DJ1MxDYJxfoI+P9J2bSse+Ch4OptkniuFnYHtxX3tkIsY6W50BhZruyUkkb2MuOCeVuQVIrOX0ooOwCbmLirh0bHSpXw6zu9/drUlFnA/lYHP8H34pY1r6sjejk9jlHweFB/uZHgOEs5/VjAwp7zylvuNeN0p+TjR34TrgqBBmvF3B2cSOtJabT7RTTvxWGE55KBqzoIl7LF2H3lystFaQ3dlYjQFRxwvF66hAALhdzHF42heQhsv3DJhDP0CP+kscHB0VurYonwzcFfYeFytQqL3X0FEAJy73XngOe7Zn7drX1eFQ==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 26 Jan 2021 17:37:58 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7C48E6C1E067; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 12:37:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21AE36C1E049; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 12:37:56 -0500 (EST)
Date: 26 Jan 2021 12:37:56 -0500
Message-ID: <5dec91c8-fb2a-248e-36a3-59535fa689cf@taugh.com>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Alessandro Vesely" <vesely@tana.it>
Cc: "IETF DMARC WG" <dmarc@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <e1c50fe3-7a80-62e7-ae9d-6347f50d389e@tana.it>
References: <20210125212225.9045B6C14E41@ary.qy> <5749790e-c305-b77d-a2f7-94c30579aa4e@tana.it> <bbff75e7-9580-cd37-da2-e797a53859f3@taugh.com> <CAL0qLwbPNw-LaCJPUBNZk_ZNZ76bNTzb+7OHBWeiYsYyZQJZxA@mail.gmail.com> <e1c50fe3-7a80-62e7-ae9d-6347f50d389e@tana.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/2uqe2xlhEcUU6xxO32RDDagXtfo>
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: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 17:38:04 -0000

> Doing it now might overload the WG.  If DKIM for binary has its own merit, we 
> can just hypothesize we'll do.  Meanwhile we can mention it and suggest to 
> use it for https: when it comes, if ever.  After all, that's what RFC 2045 
> does with "binary".

Since client certificates exist and http DKIM signatures do not, that 
doesn't sound like a great plan.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly