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

Alessandro Vesely <> Sat, 05 December 2020 12:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43743A07B3 for <>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 04:13:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.12
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Z1-OF2Giqap for <>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 04:13:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC8AE3A07AE for <>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 04:13:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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:; auth=pass (details omitted)
Original-From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Received: from [] (pcale.tana []) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLS1.3, 128bits, ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) by with ESMTPSA id 00000000005DC056.000000005FCB795D.0000043B; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 13:13:17 +0100
To: John R Levine <>,
References: <20201202233432.D45FB28E1943@ary.qy> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ticket #42 - Expand DMARC reporting URI functionality
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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;, mailto:report@service.example/https://service.example/report/;