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

Alessandro Vesely <> Tue, 26 January 2021 09:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BAD73A03F3 for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 01:03:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.221
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1152-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ec2TUvWhNOoH for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 01:03:11 -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 C3BD63A03F2 for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 01:03:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=delta; t=1611651789; bh=Rk52OGSAjJ1E+70tELWAjCfZAQC8t1AZJK3Ygz9CZgA=; l=1679; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=CQcpyNh5bgARKUp/uPds7+sDjlAIIyVYbQosTvMv3sz5hWhZg5C2k4dU1YR4hgGqn 3bNTYrhQLCbyxKQ8WkrshFEO1Nr4pXuU/Hv8cSDs6HZsGyeuMM0yIP7okNofEMYkf5 Vn+5Pxh5ErFlRExtYW840L3Soo1tFKDwR3TJTB8k4QX4vMctMnaOKTLPkr6Jy
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 00000000005DC08B.00000000600FDACC.00002E84; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:03:08 +0100
To: John Levine <>,
References: <20210125212225.9045B6C14E41@ary.qy>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:03:08 +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: <20210125212225.9045B6C14E41@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:03:13 -0000

On Mon 25/Jan/2021 22:22:25 +0100 John Levine wrote:
> In article <> you write:
>>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.
> Sheesh.  That isn't mission creep, it's mission gallop.

The spec can be commissioned to a narrowly focused WG (like dcrup).

MIME provides for a binary Content-Transfer-Encoding, albeit unused.  To sign a 
message thus (un)encoded, it is unreal to try and apply a line-oriented 
canonicalization.  The new spec should just introduce a "binary" 
canonicalization, which can only be used for the body.  From a software POV, it 
is a trivial update, as it's enough to hash the data as-is.

With that addition, DKIM can be used with HTTP transport, which is an 
interesting point per se.  Meanwhile we can specify that https: SHOULD be DKIM 

> If you want a domain identity (even though in this case it provides
> nothing useful), what's wrong with a client cert? They exist, they
> work, they have software support everywhere.

Even if you can deduce a From: email address after the Subject Alt Name, you 
cannot reliably associate it to an organizational domain.