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

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 May 2019 15:32:02 -0400

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.

---

From: James Cloos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 19:22:38 -0400

>>>>> "JL" == John Levine <[email-masked]> writes:

JL> implement it.  If people are interested in an https PUT scheme it
JL> would be easy enough to define one,

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

It wouldn't hurt to have such a scheme for dmarc, too.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <[email-masked]>         OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 May 2019 22:50:38 -0400

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

It looks straightforward enough.  Do people actually use it?

---

From: James Cloos <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 17:00:36 -0400

>>>>> "JL" == John Levine <[email-masked]> 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