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

Steven M Jones <smj@crash.com> Wed, 20 January 2021 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <smj@crash.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 7DB603A15C7 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:20:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.362
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.362 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=-0.262, 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=crash.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 NiBCletMS2oq for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:20:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from segv.crash.com (segv.crash.com [IPv6:2001:470:1:1e9::4415]) (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 4BF873A15C6 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:20:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shiny.crash.com (192-184-141-33.static.sonic.net [192.184.141.33]) (authenticated bits=0) by segv.crash.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/cci-colo-1.7) with ESMTPSA id 10KNK42q055288 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Jan 2021 23:20:12 GMT (envelope-from smj@crash.com)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 segv.crash.com 10KNK42q055288
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=crash.com; s=201506-2k; t=1611184813; bh=aDluuwJHVNvY4wiJ2Mr1zVa8bOZ75VX9rS7kC5jViEA=; h=Subject:From:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=cyGrLos0UMqUaKaIN2ZbDXkZ6KnrcTTO/h3XVSIy/GVgDkDWI37TwFKRcZWqHwwFJ VPmdNfRmdT8L+iTx9tqYPnFGPiW4xGb6cGUhBYFMFzjBgUTAYJ8zhDchSQb5+NEq57 hTnRtTKqHpuZ8ltdcmHMNt0iSkQEu78tTEnSVEcZnECc6AHxggEBCpc5n9eaNlz8QO tuM6x8oUInylxD9Rg1frno5x/eACInnT16yItMIIv1pimuLewwB7LN9fEfcpzE92pN gqb7i5OWSzVLfuslaZ342S8miPAydLqbYxhiAaIOxSaoWGrLH32hyFNuI02KlvRQAV QTrvRAwYHhHAA==
X-Authentication-Warning: segv.crash.com: Host 192-184-141-33.static.sonic.net [192.184.141.33] claimed to be shiny.crash.com
From: Steven M Jones <smj@crash.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20210120023151.3C86A6B7C86C@ary.qy> <ccc2489b-742d-acca-58db-55519764b02f@tana.it> <132aa0a-bd63-9ed1-e3d-75b23f46f15@taugh.com> <f03aa3ae-2e6a-b095-39a2-837bfe2cabc4@crash.com>
Message-ID: <3c89c5f8-853e-8a8a-d026-3a834d26eccd@crash.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:20:04 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f03aa3ae-2e6a-b095-39a2-837bfe2cabc4@crash.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 (segv.crash.com [72.52.75.15]); Wed, 20 Jan 2021 23:20:13 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/azkMrvjh0Su4v6us4BTwWfp1JFI>
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: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 23:20:19 -0000

On 1/20/21 15:10, Steven M Jones wrote:
>
> Duplicate reports to the same destination are not
> the base case


I may be an idiot, or at least too quick to hit Send. Since nobody
implements https:// yet, what does the transition look like? Likely two
URIs to the same report processor, using each method.

But I suspect the specification can deal with preferring one method over
the other when both are present and the report generator supports both.

--S.