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 wrote:
Section 6.3 says that ruf a
> On May 27, 2019, at 3:32 PM, John Levine 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
> "JL" == John Levine 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=http
In article you write:
>> "JL" == John Levine 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 looks straightforward enough. Do people actually use it?
> "JL" == John Levine 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 Ope
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 spe
