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

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Thu, 03 December 2020 12:39 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 EF01C3A08BD for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 04:39:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.121 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_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 TDDG5yyBonAy for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 04:39:27 -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 312C43A08B1 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 04:39:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=delta; t=1606999165; bh=NsBCm+pQyLgq3Y+fYeYBpNqlExAI4wNO5pbIPyIVJWc=; l=899; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=AKOKyWPZ2h96GAjstZBlQRUK51J6kf7IdHyGMPXbsLwHLGNFj/J/WnSx2z+2UY9st HVZ9k5th46GIsd08f6lknwA8cyzgUig3N23ShyGdGqMidp/yl+NP/Ac8yWSxXbVPUW daPjYH/C2IPpjZomb66+o1UuIU4JNa8VN59Jv/yJ/H70Pcpsh2m3poeAvy+Qb
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 00000000005DC02A.000000005FC8DC7D.00006EDA; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 13:39:25 +0100
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20201202233432.D45FB28E1943@ary.qy>
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Message-ID: <f719b86d-9a7d-f865-3e16-10eaf35e0de0@tana.it>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 13:39:25 +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: <20201202233432.D45FB28E1943@ary.qy>
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/Jb5Ar6rJ8ndZNjR4OjP7CgnXWVU>
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: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 12:39:29 -0000

On Thu 03/Dec/2020 00:34:32 +0100 John Levine wrote:
> In article <c8aff369-f540-a506-7351-3dff6384d426@tana.it> you write:
>>A better means to control report size is to gauge the reporting interval.
> 
> When this came up before someone said that reports can be extremely
> large, many megabytes.  An HTTP POST or PUT is a much better way to send that.


However faster, an https PUT/POST at midnight arrives later than a mailto at 
midday.


> Here's another nit: POST doesn't pass the report's filename. There
> should be a copy of the name in the header of the gzip data, but
> semantically it would be better to do an https PUT to
> <url>/<filename>. That also has the advantage of being idempotent so
> if it puts the same file twice the server can tell it's a duplicate.


Yes, PUT is better than POST.

How about pgp-signing the file with the dkim key?


Best
Ale
--