IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Reporting URIs

James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> Tue, 28 May 2019 21:00 UTC

Return-Path: <cloos@jhcloos.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 A9F211200BA for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2019 14:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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=jhcloos.com
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 YBeZCME43aSf for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2019 14:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ore.jhcloos.com (ore.jhcloos.com [192.40.56.151]) (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 46F9612003F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2019 14:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ore.jhcloos.com (Postfix, from userid 10) id 2070E2086D; Tue, 28 May 2019 21:00:43 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jhcloos.com; s=ore17; t=1559077243; bh=C6kLlZQkbzkCq6eNFgxaLk7MIrm3KumD4q64UNL+fZ0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=l4DibU15GlE+l4pBj8kH5yWpukxWoDpDCmiFAZnnI2gJQ4AdkhQKem/oXaTGqyCNq /8xHr08GDti0J6gtd/FDqM9moD1BxWjYOXyFyuQp2hAYG/GAZ4TaZOP5ci1fUoJOGT v++ZaprSi7nvIsTbkIshevo7T2YiZT/VPOvLV5SYnBfgNQEqTWptuBT+k2+R9WU/T0 jt+1B5mh/DZfg4rGQvI90rxHogiEuS8rMqwZXwboX300PZmqw9oYghecIgDOgGc9rY 4FvGcTW7U4+rVQ6iZvniYWUp6f3xiPeRURAzJvR7PXRDNsMwiyh0YZ+a+NcJsoT6mr 2XuMdG0us75KQ==
Received: by carbon.jhcloos.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id A08B424F74; Tue, 28 May 2019 21:00:36 +0000 (UTC)
From: James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190528025039.0D5272014B0A62@ary.qy> (John Levine's message of "27 May 2019 22:50:38 -0400")
References: <20190528025039.0D5272014B0A62@ary.qy>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)
Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABAAAAAQAgMAAABinRfyAAAACVBMVEX///8ZGXBQKKnCrDQ3 AAAAJElEQVQImWNgQAAXzwQg4SKASgAlXIEEiwsSIYBEcLaAtMEAADJnB+kKcKioAAAAAElFTkSu QmCC
Copyright: Copyright 2019 James Cloos
OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6; url=https://jhcloos.com/public_key/0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6.asc
OpenPGP-Fingerprint: E9E9 F828 61A4 6EA9 0F2B 63E7 997A 9F17 ED7D AEA6
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 17:00:36 -0400
Message-ID: <m37eaa5m6j.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org>
Lines: 12
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Y6Jf7WqG-izyK1sJDPud4tynXos>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis issue: Reporting URIs
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, 28 May 2019 21:00:46 -0000

>>>>> "JL" == John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> writes:

JC>> I find that the http POST scheme for TLSRPT works very well.

JL> It looks straightforward enough.  Do people actually use it?

I've only received TLSRPT POSTs from Googlebot/2.1, but I got the
impression that I wasn't the only one to use v=TLSRPTv1;rua=https:...

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email