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

Alessandro Vesely <> Thu, 31 December 2020 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 757903A0CC5 for <>; Thu, 31 Dec 2020 07:02:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 wg9ty1weofld for <>; Thu, 31 Dec 2020 07:02:08 -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 3F3D33A0CE5 for <>; Thu, 31 Dec 2020 07:02:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=delta; t=1609426926; bh=soMkZTzxQGQyPPMgUPFA93OV2kwvRqAF/SNxBhgBIFU=; l=1329; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=BQJRUgIKYys8a7wD91Ykc/khp2HX/Hy7NLOVAZSPfvRhCwrCyDFUtpbRhSW36Sest W93WNeDBqfgaBoLBAN/AzPljHnCbRQ6Ab1ZybL5qLlgbW9NTHO2MGFkpTt8mhOR736 H1Fo7EMorl9H0sue5TWK74W603+E92iJBZltrdMV67d+t6MdBmLKnsiuNJ1td
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 00000000005DC026.000000005FEDE7EE.0000144D; Thu, 31 Dec 2020 16:02:06 +0100
To: John R Levine <>,
References: <> <>
From: Alessandro Vesely <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2020 16:02:06 +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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: Thu, 31 Dec 2020 15:02:24 -0000

On Wed 30/Dec/2020 22:23:20 +0100 John R Levine wrote:
> There was some discussion about the detail that if there are multiple addresses 
> in the rua= tag you send the report to all of them.  People were quite clear 
> that is a feature.  I proposed as a hack a ruap= tag for rua preferred, if the 
> reporting system can send reports to all of the URIs in the ruap tag it does 
> so, otherwise it uses rua as it does now.  That lets you put the https URIs in 
> the ruap tag which existing code will ignore.
> Didn't get a lot of comments pro or con on that one.

I still like better sticking to a unique tag (rua=) and applying OR-slashes.  With a comma, it is backward compatible:

v=DMARC1; p=none;, mailto:report@service.example, /https://service.example/report/;

(The first scheme without a leading slash introduces a new series of alternatives.)

The main reason to stick to the same tag is to allow overriding.  For example, if the above record were:

IN TXT "v=DMARC1; p=none;, mailto:report@service.example"

Then service.example can override rua=:

IN TXT "v=DMARC1; rua=mailto:report@service.example, /https://service.example/report/;