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

Michael Thomas <> Tue, 26 January 2021 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C290D3A0BF7 for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:28:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.149
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bX3izS2BQ2yt for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:28:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::434]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE40D3A0BE9 for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:28:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id q131so10805984pfq.10 for <>; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:28:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=95gFZSwLpPE7ywiKaZxuFGxt3KWrLOT+GSmw7KCELoo=; b=PxtovwgvvNJWx0d0y5SsIs/eeD6cXShbXNAsWIPeNZlrO4Ie/HFIBnRlBvLfV76lHe 2+d2ByWoELD0xtXsyrB3otoK6Ow7w08fTCPYEOcHrvSNBe/dW6ejM+6ij74MS5NsICsX zzIEjvxfZ0uPKZl5OLMzLoMMWAGFE1e6+VbCYo/mq7OtRguyDTS9kuR6EeIlOhCcd6lz Zkqhwe/ez0GyrwtPqB4Om8IytC0ZOzDPBSSjk1ig/R958NXd5uNYmAZqwsqRBym8Q+eW Udl3Wdo9/1PozkBBcQMWKKzYy+EfwyJH/6aGdiS5Pj0kuCqrwogFVEd6R5cPOEx0OC9f Xt7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=95gFZSwLpPE7ywiKaZxuFGxt3KWrLOT+GSmw7KCELoo=; b=tak2PO8+qpNEQR82uQO1XwNumZAIsmJDTBaXiHrJrm9/49ja7z5LX78Nw0S2K18rbc CdL/EPCwO9MmBjKAv+sk0cZpchS8lz0jP+OnNjflPsU8eTMgD2jyuMcPcStz+ZwK0X8H FvIWq9qk6bJHYyrcOyc/d3TRDzHlnyQcmkLNt2lpZpu4F9X6GLM7vUZuV5qih3OyGPhL HIIwHqy5zitEoaRku4T7VfaryenMsuPVg3YHBTUj+sstTYoJt1LD3oFvJ/70Hi8nXnf8 zQHPBhVmyPKcL/IvNEATSTxswUWHf1GFSt9G0O0aWT9minMp9A9IDaRPC0O0fAu94fpJ kHaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5328RRRuTD9fPQjerxdzriPUtLqb7utBnKkyLGRx05wXjbBnwTlA l8csPe/gOuTe0E1UcvXGv0RzWum1VFzYtw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzZ9J5doC8RbmFO8rMsc3fRBSbZAdAwMeu89g2cYi9FzEce27S5JoX+19xugRO8akQ8Ao72pQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:a312:: with SMTP id s18mr1128372pge.229.1611682115846; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:28:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id n7sm20112129pfn.141.2021. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:28:35 -0800 (PST)
References: <20210125212225.9045B6C14E41@ary.qy> <> <>
From: Michael Thomas <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 09:28:33 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
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 17:28:38 -0000

On 1/26/21 9:16 AM, John R Levine wrote:
>> Even if you can deduce a From: email address after the Subject Alt 
>> Name, you cannot reliably associate it to an organizational domain.
> Sorry, that makes no sense at all.  The cert has a domain name, or a 
> bunch of domain names.  You can do exactly as much or as little with 
> those domain names as you can with the domain in an e-mail From: 
> header.  Keep in mind, of course, that none of those domains have any 
> connection at all with the contents of an aggregate report, no matter 
> how it is delivered.

Use of client certs is a non-starter. The use of http here is 
problematic and getting more so. This entire issue should just be junked.