On Mar 13, 2014, at 10:33 AM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd suggest deleting section 11.2.2 on http reporting, since as far as > I can tell nobody has ever implemented it. > > Appendix B.6. is intended to be an example of http reporting, but it > doesn't match the text in 11.2.2 (somewhat my fault, since 11.2.2 is > mine.) If people really expect to do http reporting, I can provide a > replacement for B.6., but lacking that, just get rid of it.
Late last night I finished up folding in outstanding feedback, but I think the above warrants a brief discussion. I too have never seen anyone implement the HTTP reporting channel. The original thinking was to keep the reporting channel a bit flexible (way back when, some reports were delivered via FTP, eg), but clearly that sort of flexibility isn't needed or at least desired. Removing the HTTP section means we'll have RUA/F meaning "Reporting URIs", but the only allowed URI is "mailto:";. Although a bit of an oddity, I don't think we can go as far as remove the "URI" bits, 'cause that would break existing implementations. Permission to chop out HTTP-based reporting? =- Tim _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
