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

Tomki <tki@tomki.com> Thu, 13 June 2019 00:27 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=060332d33=tki@tomki.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 874891200F9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 17:27:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tomki.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 U8HbBWZhJFxK for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 17:27:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from athena.vistabroadband.net (athena.vistabroadband.net [69.39.252.35]) (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 177A9120043 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 17:27:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tomki.com; l=1381; q=dns/txt; s=tomki; t=1560385658; x=1560558458; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; z=Subject:=20Re:=20[dmarc-ietf]=20DMARCbis=20issue:=20Repo rting=20URIs|To:=20Tim=20Draegen=20<tim@eudaemon.net>,=20 John=20Levine=20<johnl@taugh.com>|Cc:=20dmarc@ietf.org |References:=20<20190527193203.4B74F2014AD9CA@ary.qy>=0D =0A=20<56D45AF9-3C51-46DF-B346-C317B4BAABC5@eudaemon.net> |From:=20Tomki=20<tki@tomki.com>|Message-ID:=20<b8fbd6af- efde-dd57-c8c9-d812c23f8920@tomki.com>|Date:=20Wed,=2012 =20Jun=202019=2017:27:30=20-0700|MIME-Version:=201.0 |In-Reply-To:=20<56D45AF9-3C51-46DF-B346-C317B4BAABC5@eud aemon.net>|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit; bh=hB1Yk+JpE4WpmQvd0x0LsCZds65zgUX04JlHlXnjxZE=; b=ZQsqakriW0sCDkyXRXfQk6Ja9+Brw3JDGyleAPUICLLsqXaPmysRRQ9t M6ZAeQS+s657GZNjCed8LPfcTrBB9lJxyOF72j9n1KT5p2uXQBmzqpl06 YD09HSoOo+T6HZDsD6SqBkp9mECRfoR9dKQg9yZdY4y7z0sphTTg5EMFA C9KMjmOJJZ6IGvWiHEfuZ1K3DW0hkGbG16aDa7jTKpz1M6a1XR1Gk6Vws o3gHrDszZ24NHPfSaDnS1XZTkYTyiFGEODtH2aNoySNBrHZ322dh5qqyc AQfns/5en9K2afEddWvdjKCXCQrIhfSZC/pwC5ewPZ+BdmtxM8e3EpQpf w==;
X-Filenames:
X-SBRS: -10.0
X-recvListener: Inbound
X-sendergroup: RELAYLIST
X-remote-hostname: 75-105-60-135.cust.exede.net
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,367,1557212400"; d="scan'208";a="44933392"
Received: from 75-105-60-135.cust.exede.net (HELO borage.ViaSatDomain) ([75.105.60.135]) by athena.vistabroadband.net with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Jun 2019 17:27:34 -0700
To: Tim Draegen <tim@eudaemon.net>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <20190527193203.4B74F2014AD9CA@ary.qy> <56D45AF9-3C51-46DF-B346-C317B4BAABC5@eudaemon.net>
From: Tomki <tki@tomki.com>
Message-ID: <b8fbd6af-efde-dd57-c8c9-d812c23f8920@tomki.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 17:27:30 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56D45AF9-3C51-46DF-B346-C317B4BAABC5@eudaemon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ngIYbVtP5Njgz-r1g3qDHMkA-MI>
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: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 00:36:33 -0000

FWIW (nothing, now?) I'm fairly certain that Netease did have a fully 
operational implementation of the HTTPS delivery component up until it 
was removed from the spec.

--Tomki


On 6/4/19 12:21 AM, Tim Draegen wrote:
>> On May 27, 2019, at 3:32 PM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>
>> Section 6.3 says that ruf and rua tags can take any URI, but only
>> define the meaning of a mailto: URI.  Either it should define some
>> other URI schemes or it should say that only mailto: URIs are valid.
>>
>> Back in the olden days there was an http or https scheme that we took
>> out because it was ill specified, and nobody but me had tried to
>> implement it.  If people are interested in an https PUT scheme it
>> would be easy enough to define one, but only if someone says they want
>> to use it.  For large reports it could be somewhat faster than mailto
>> both because the report body isn't base64 encoded and the report goes
>> straight to the https server and doesn't get relayed as mail does.
> 
> FWIW I've added this to the tracker:
> 
>    https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/29#ticket
> 
> ...and have mentioned the http POST scheme for TLSRPT. Feel free to add more context if you'd like.
> =- Tim
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>