On Mar 13, 2014, at 7:49 AM, Tim Draegen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
+1 Matt > ____________________________________________ > 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
