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

From: Tim Draegen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 03:21:01 -0400

> On May 27, 2019, at 3:32 PM, John Levine <[email-masked]> 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

---

From: Tomki <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 17:27:30 -0700

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:
> ...and have mentioned the http POST scheme for TLSRPT. Feel free to add more context if you'd like.
> =- Tim
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>