| Internet-Draft | react | August 2021 |
| Crocker | Expires 14 February 2022 | [Page] |
The address to which email is delivered might be different than any of the addresses shown in any of the content header fields that were created by the email's author. For example, the address used by the email transport service is provided separately, through an envelope SMTP "RCPT TO" command. Before final delivery, handling can entail a sequence of submission/delivery events, using different destination addresses that lead to the recipient. Also, the delivery process can produce local address transformations.¶
It can be helpful for a message to have a common way to record each delivery in such a sequence, and to include each address used for that recipient, such as for analyzing the path a message has taken, for loop detection, or for formulating the author's address in a reply message. This document defines a header field for this information.¶
Email handling information discloses details about the email infrastructure, as well as about a particular recipient; this can raise possible privacy concerns. A header field such as this is not automatically assured of widespread use. Therefore this is being published as an Experiment, looking for constituency and for operational utility. The document is produced through the Independent RFC stream and was not subject to the IETF's approval process.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 14 February 2022.¶
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.¶
The address to which email is delivered might be different than any of the addresses shown in any of the content header fields [Mail-Fmt] that were created by the author's Mail User Agent (MUA) [Mail-Arch]. The address used by the Message Handling Service (MHS) is provided separately, typically through an envelope "RCPT TO" command [SMTP].¶
Delivery is the final processing of an envelope address, with a transition of responsibility from the MHS, over to an agent responsible for that address (Section 4.3.3 [Mail-Arch]). After this transition there might be further, fresh processing of the message, before reaching a final destination. Each transition of responsibility, from the MHS to an agent of the addressee, constitutes a delivery.¶
Given aliasing, mailing lists, and the like, the transit of a message from its author to a final recipient might include a series of submission/delivery events. Also, the delivery process can produce local address transformations. It can be helpful for a message to have a common way of indicating each delivery in the handling sequence, and to include each address that led to the final delivery. This can aid in the analysis of a message's transit handling.¶
An additional use can as an aid in detecting a delivery sequence loop. With a loop, the same copy of a messages transits the same email address more than once. This is different from having the message simply transit the same MTA more than once, which might be necessary, such as when it is processed through a mailing list; an MTA services many addresses. It is also different from having two copies of the same message arrive at the same, ultimate destination, having been originally posted to two different addresses.¶
Delivering the same copy of a message more than once, to the same address, is almost certainly not an intended activity. An example of a problematic arrangement would be to send a message to mailing list listA, where listA contains an entry for listB, and listB contains an entry for listA. The message will enter an infinite loop. Loop detection for email can be a complicated affair. The Delivered-To header field provides helpful information with a definitive indication that this copy of a message has been delivered to a specific address.¶
Email handling information, such as this, provides information about the email infrastructure, as well as about the recipient; disclosure of this information might entail privacy concerns. A header field such as this is not automatically assured of adoption or use. Therefore it is being published as an Experiment, looking for constituency and for operational utility. This document is produced through the Independent RFC stream and was not subject to the IETF's approval process.¶
Ad hoc use of a "Delivered-To" email header field appears to date back to the 1990s, although documentation is spotty and system-specific. It appears that all uses include a string in the form of an email address, although at least one example has leading text that is a comment about the address. In some cases, the string appears to be the email transport destination address. In other cases, it appears to be the result of some internal mapping, although tending to be a variant of the transport address.¶
Email loop detection tends to be accomplished through a variety of different methods, such as counting Received: header fields. These methods are often combined for greater effect.¶
The Received: header field's 'for' clause is sometimes useful for disclosing the recipient's address. However the clause is not used reliably.¶
Unless otherwise indicated, basic architecture and terminology used in this document are taken from:¶
and syntax is specified with:¶
This document defines the "Delivered-To" header field, for annotating an email delivery event. The header field contains information about the individual address that is used to determine the immediate location for that transition.¶
The Delivered-To header field is added at the time of delivery, when responsibility for a message transitions from the Message Handling (Transport) Service (MHS) to an agent of the specified individual recipient address. The field can also be added as a result of internal system processing, to note address transformations.¶
The syntax of the header field is:¶
"Delivered-To:" FWS addr-spec FWS CRLF
; addr-spec is from [Mail-Fmt]¶
The field records information about only a single address, for one recipient. See Section 6 for the privacy-related concerns about divulging addresses.¶
The Delivered-To header field can indicate a sequence of deliveries, as demonstrated by this example, which has a message traveling through a mailing list, on through an alias, and then reaching final delivery:¶
List @ org.example¶
Delivered-To: list@org.example Received: by submit.org.example with SMTP id i17so17480689ljn.1 for <list@org.example>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 15:29:19 -0800 (PST) From: Ann Author <aauthor@com.example> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:29:06 -0500 To: list@org.example Subject: [list] Sending through a list and alias Sender: Ann Author <aauthor@com.example>¶
Alias @ edu.example¶
Delivered-To: Recipient-alumn@edu.example Received: from mail.org.example by relay.edu.example; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 23:29:24 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: list@org.example Received: by submit.org.example with SMTP id i17so17480689ljn.1 for <list@org.example>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 15:29:19 -0800 (PST) From: Ann Author <aauthor@com.example> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:29:06 -0500 To: list@org.example Subject: [list] Sending through a list and alias Sender: list-bounces@org.example¶
Delivery @ example.net¶
Delivered-To: theRecipient@example.net Received: from mail.edu.example (mail.edu.example [4.31.198.45]) by relay.example.net; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 23:29:24 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: Recipient-alumn@edu.example Received: from mail.org.example by relay.edu.example; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 23:29:24 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: list@org.example Received: by submit.org.example with SMTP id i17so17480689ljn.1 for <list@org.example>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 15:29:19 -0800 (PST) From: Ann Author <aauthor@com.example> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 18:29:06 -0500 To: list@org.example Subject: [list] Sending through a list and alias Sender: list-bounces@org.example¶
As with Received header fields, the presence of a Delivered-To header field discloses handling information and, possibly, personal information.¶
An issue that is entirely implementation specific, and therefore out of scope to this document, is that in some systems, a message that is for multiple (local) recipients is stored as a single, shared version. Supporting Delivered-To, while maintaining recipient privacy, creates a challenge in this case. However, exposing different addresses to other recipients is usually problematic.¶
An issue specific to this mechanism is disclosure of a sequence of addresses, if a message goes through a series of recipient address modifications. The document calls for each of these addresses to be recorded in separate Delivered-To fields. This does not disclose addresses of other recipients, but it does disclose a address-transformation handling path for the recipient.¶
Registration of the "Delivered-To" header field is requested, per [RFC3864]:¶
Specific feedback is sought concerning:¶
So the questions to answer for this Experimental document are:¶
Please send comments to ietf-smtp@ietf.org.¶
Even a simple, narrow specification can elicit a remarkable range and intensity of debate. In spite of the current document's being a case of that challenge, useful discussion has taken place, first in the IETF's emailcore working group mailing list, and then on the long-standing IETF smtp mailing list.¶
Helpful information and suggestions were provided by: Richard Clayton, Viktor Dukhovni, Ned Freed, John Klensin, John Levine, Brandon Long, George Michaelson, Michael Peddemors, Phil Pennock, Pete Resnick, Sam Varshavchik, Alessandro Vesely, Tim Wicinski.¶