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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Sat, 05 December 2020 12:13 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 B43743A07B3 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 04:13:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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_DNSWL_BLOCKED=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 3Z1-OF2Giqap for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 04:13:21 -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 CC8AE3A07AE for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 04:13:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1607170397; bh=7DfryTO1Cr3Nd8BQOltBN0SNreLVggIqDASxXwKsqrE=; l=1074; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BH7qHuK8OzilOmB6/iG3HSIxq10YiUcorzHXV1uYpAhfal+dKWe9vpYRGxjmOlAZ4 I29vs5OS1QygriCZ50jvSYu1k9CE6u0XMZlITsHBJ1jGemhxedl3xkOLsPQ6aAfaMt NGz7kAiMKqmpBJlMVfWqhAnb+xRFi7YxTKhUjYZzwn0PnQnBkolBR+J3nypDJ
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 00000000005DC056.000000005FCB795D.0000043B; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 13:13:17 +0100
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20201202233432.D45FB28E1943@ary.qy> <f719b86d-9a7d-f865-3e16-10eaf35e0de0@tana.it> <479cfb50-b98e-fbbe-e7ce-375557cd624@taugh.com> <f406f70b-3f98-a8fd-db9d-956c000f5c68@tana.it> <a4c256c2-d0a3-1fc1-b585-7b8659cd6a4@taugh.com> <0a650f5d-c53d-ab45-4125-6491c413f70b@tana.it> <a7bd1f7-66e0-1051-5cb5-e4efcb13cdb0@taugh.com>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <b8265b69-6e95-feb5-9486-82a8a88d3afc@tana.it>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 13:13:17 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a7bd1f7-66e0-1051-5cb5-e4efcb13cdb0@taugh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/615_BxC9vsA2bj2PYpRZ0f08Tkk>
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: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 12:13:23 -0000

On Fri 04/Dec/2020 19:21:33 +0100 John R Levine wrote:
>>> I meant "at the same time" as in during the same reporting run.  As Dave 
>>> noted, if you sent any particular report by https, there's no need to send 
>>> it again by mail.
>>
>> Got it.  However, the spec says it's a list of addresses to which aggregate 
>> feedback is to be sent.  When there are multiple entries, up to now, reports 
>> are sent to each.
> 
> Hm, we might want to revisit that.  If a domain wants mail sent to three 
> places, it's not like it's hard to arrange for forwarding.  My intention is 
> that if you send the report by https, you're done.


The VALCHAR element in Section 3.2 of RFC 6376 accepts "/", which is seldom used in email addresses and ubiquitous in https URIs.  We could convene that when a mailto is to be considered as an alternative to an https, then the former should precede the latter, separated by a slash.  For example:

v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:local@example.com, mailto:report@service.example/https://service.example/report/;


Best
Ale
--