TOC 
Sieve Working GroupB. Leiba
Internet-DraftIBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Updates: 3834 (if approved)M. Haardt
Intended status: Standards Trackfreenet.de GmbH
Expires: June 7, 2009December 04, 2008


Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-10

Status of this Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

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.”

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on June 7, 2009.

Abstract

This document describes a profile of the Sieve extension for notifications, to allow notifications to be sent by electronic mail.



Table of Contents

1.  Introduction
1.1.  Overview
1.2.  Conventions used in this document

2.  Definition
2.1.  Notify parameter "method"
2.2.  Test notify_method_capability
2.3.  Notify tag ":from"
2.4.  Notify tag ":importance"
2.5.  Notify tag ":options"
2.6.  Notify tag ":message"
2.7.  Other Definitions
2.7.1.  The Auto-Submitted header field

3.  Examples

4.  Internationalization Considerations

5.  Security Considerations

6.  IANA Considerations
6.1.  Registration of notification mechanism
6.2.  New registry for Auto-Submitted header field keywords
6.3.  Initial registration of Auto-Submitted header field keywords

7.  References
7.1.  Normative References
7.2.  Non-Normative References

§  Authors' Addresses
§  Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements




 TOC 

1.  Introduction



 TOC 

1.1.  Overview

The [Notify] (Melnikov, A., Ed., Leiba, B., Ed., Segmuller, W., and T. Martin, “Sieve Extension: Notifications,” December 2007.) extension to the [Sieve] (Guenther, P., Ed. and T. Showalter, Ed., “Sieve: An Email Filtering Language,” January 2008.) mail filtering language is a framework for providing notifications by employing URIs to specify the notification mechanism. This document defines how [mailto] (Hoffman, P., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, “The mailto URL scheme,” July 1998.) URIs are used to generate notifications by e-mail.



 TOC 

1.2.  Conventions used in this document

Conventions for notations are as in [Sieve] (Guenther, P., Ed. and T. Showalter, Ed., “Sieve: An Email Filtering Language,” January 2008.) section 1.1, including the use of [Kwds] (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.).

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [Kwds] (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.).



 TOC 

2.  Definition

The mailto mechanism results in the sending of a new email message (a "notification message") to notify a recipient about a "triggering message".



 TOC 

2.1.  Notify parameter "method"

The mailto notification mechanism uses standard mailto URIs as specified in [mailto] (Hoffman, P., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, “The mailto URL scheme,” July 1998.). mailto URIs may contain header fields consisting of a header name and value. These header fields are called "URI headers" to distinguish them from "message headers".



 TOC 

2.2.  Test notify_method_capability

The notify_method_capability test for "online" may return "yes" or "no" only if the Sieve processor can determine with certainty whether or not the recipients of the notification message are online and logged in. Otherwise, the test returns "maybe" for this notification method.



 TOC 

2.3.  Notify tag ":from"

The :from tag overrides the default sender of the notification message. "Sender", here, refers to the value used in the [RFC5322] (Resnick, P., Ed., “Internet Message Format,” October 2008.) "From" header. Implementations MAY also use this value in the [RFC5321] (Klensin, J., Ed., “Simple Mail Transfer Protocol,” October 2008.) "MAIL FROM" command (the "envelope sender"), or they may prefer to establish a mailbox that receives bounces from notification messages.



 TOC 

2.4.  Notify tag ":importance"

The :importance tag has no special meaning for this notification mechanism, and this specification puts no restriction on its use. Implementations MAY use the value of :importance to set a priority or importance indication on the notification message (perhaps a visual indication, or perhaps making use of one of the non-standard but commonly used message headers).



 TOC 

2.5.  Notify tag ":options"

This tag is not used by the mailto method.



 TOC 

2.6.  Notify tag ":message"

The value of this tag, if it is present, is used as the subject of the notification message, and overrides all other mechanisms for determining the subject (as described below). Its value SHOULD NOT normally be truncated, though it may be sensible to truncate an excessively long value.



 TOC 

2.7.  Other Definitions

Because the receipt of an email message is generating another email message, implementations MUST take steps to avoid mail loops. The REQUIRED inclusion of an "Auto-Submitted:" field, as described in the message composition guidelines, will also help in loop detection and avoidance.

Implementations SHOULD NOT trigger notifications for messages containing "Auto-Submitted:" header fields with any value other than "No".

Implementations MUST allow messages with empty envelope senders to trigger notifications.

Because this notification method uses a store-and-forward system for delivery of the notification message, the Sieve processor should not have a need to retry notifications. Therefore, implementations of this method SHOULD use normal mechanisms for submitting SMTP messages and for retrying the initial submission. Once the notification message is submitted, implementations MUST NOT resubmit it, as this is likely to result in multiple notifications, and increases the danger of message loops.

The overall notification message is composed using the following guidelines (see [RFC5322] (Resnick, P., Ed., “Internet Message Format,” October 2008.) for references to message header fields):



 TOC 

2.7.1.  The Auto-Submitted header field

The header field "Auto-Submitted: auto-notified" MUST be included in the notification message (see [RFC3834] (Moore, K., “Recommendations for Automatic Responses to Electronic Mail,” August 2004.)). The "Auto-Submitted" header field is considered a "trace field", similar to "Received" header fields (see [RFC5321] (Klensin, J., Ed., “Simple Mail Transfer Protocol,” October 2008.)). If the implementation retains the "Received" fields from the triggering message (see above), the "Auto-Submitted" field MUST be placed above those "Received" fields, serving as a boundary between the ones from the triggering message and those that will be part of the notification message.

The auto-notified Auto-Submitted field MUST include one or both of the following parameters:

See Section 5 (Security Considerations) for discussion of possible uses of these parameters.



 TOC 

3.  Examples

Triggering message (received by recipient@example.org):

   Return-Path: <knitting-bounces@example.com>
   Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org
     for <recipient@example.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500
   Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com
     for <knitting@example.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800
   Message-ID: <1234567.89ABCDEF@example.com>
   Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:59:19 +0100
   Precedence: list
   List-Id: Knitting Mailing List <knitting.example.com>
   Sender: knitting-bounces@example.com
   Errors-To: knitting-bounces@example.com
   From: "Jeff Smith" <jeff@hobbies.example.com>
   To: "Knitting Mailing List" <knitting@example.com>
   Subject: [Knitting] A new sweater

   I just finished a great new sweater!


Sieve script (run on behalf of recipient@example.org):

   require ["notify", "variables"];

   if header :contains "list-id" "knitting.example.com" {
     if header :matches "Subject" "[*] *" {
       notify :message "From ${1} list: ${2}"
           :importance "3"
           "mailto:0123456789@sms.example.net?to=backup@example.com";
     }
   }


Notification message:

   Auto-Submitted: auto-notified; owner-email="recipient@example.org"
   Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org
     for <recipient@example.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500
   Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com
     for <knitting@example.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800
   Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:55 -0500
   Message-ID: <A2299BB.FF7788@example.org>
   From: recipient@example.org
   To: 0123456789@sms.example.net, backup@example.com
   Subject: From Knitting list: A new sweater

Note that:



 TOC 

4.  Internationalization Considerations

This specification introduces no specific internationalization issues that are not already addressed in [Sieve] (Guenther, P., Ed. and T. Showalter, Ed., “Sieve: An Email Filtering Language,” January 2008.) and in [Notify] (Melnikov, A., Ed., Leiba, B., Ed., Segmuller, W., and T. Martin, “Sieve Extension: Notifications,” December 2007.).



 TOC 

5.  Security Considerations

Sending a notification is comparable with forwarding mail to the notification recipient. Care must be taken when forwarding mail automatically, to ensure that confidential information is not sent into an insecure environment.

The automated sending of email messages exposes the system to mail loops, which can cause operational problems. Implementations of this specification MUST protect themselves against mail loops; see Section 2.7 (Other Definitions) for discussion of this and some suggestions. Other possible mitigations for mail loops involve types of service limitations. For example, the number of notifications generated for a single user might be limited to no more than, say, 30 in a 60-minute period. Of course, this technique presents its own problems, in that the actual rate limit must be selected carefully, to allow most legitimate situations in the given environment, and even with careful selection it's inevitable that there will be false positives -- and false negatives.

Ultimately, human intervention may be necessary to re-enable notifications that have been disabled because a loop was detected, or to terminate a very slow loop that's under the automatic-detection radar. Administrative mechanisms MUST be available to handle these sorts of situations.

Email addresses specified as recipients of notifications might not be owned by the entity that owns the Sieve script. As a result, a notification recipient could wind up as the target of unwanted notifications, either through intent (using scripts to mount a mail-bomb attack) or by accident (an address was mistyped or has been reassigned). The situation is arguably no worse than any other in which a recipient gets unwanted email, and some of the same mechanisms can be used in this case. But those deploying this extension have to be aware of the potential extra problems here, where scripts might be created through means that do not adequately validate email addresses, and such scripts might then be forgotten and left to run indefinitely.

In particular, note that the Auto-Submitted header field is required to include a value that a recipient can use when contacting the source domain of the notification message (see Section 2.7.1 (The Auto-Submitted header field)). That value will allow the domain to track down the script's owner and have the script corrected or disabled. Domains that enable this extension MUST be prepared to respond to such complaints, in order to limit the damage caused by a faulty script.

Problems can also show up if notification messages are sent to a gateway into another service, such as SMS. Information from the email message is often lost in the gateway translation, and in this case critical information needed to avoid loops, to contact the script owner, and to resolve other problems might be lost. Developers of email gateways should consider these issues, and try to preseve as much information as possible, including what appears in email trace headers and Auto-Submitted.

Additional security considerations are discussed in [Sieve] (Guenther, P., Ed. and T. Showalter, Ed., “Sieve: An Email Filtering Language,” January 2008.) and in [Notify] (Melnikov, A., Ed., Leiba, B., Ed., Segmuller, W., and T. Martin, “Sieve Extension: Notifications,” December 2007.).



 TOC 

6.  IANA Considerations



 TOC 

6.1.  Registration of notification mechanism

The following template specifies the IANA registration of the Sieve notification mechanism specified in this document:

To: iana@iana.org
Subject: Registration of new Sieve notification mechanism
Mechanism name: mailto
Mechanism URI: RFC2368
Mechanism-specific tags: none
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: this RFC
Person and email address to contact for further information:
    Michael Haardt <michael.haardt@freenet.ag>

This information should be added to the list of sieve notification mechanisms given on http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-notification.



 TOC 

6.2.  New registry for Auto-Submitted header field keywords

Because [RFC3834] (Moore, K., “Recommendations for Automatic Responses to Electronic Mail,” August 2004.) does not define a registry for new keywords used in the Auto-Submitted header field, we define one here, to be created as http://www.iana.org/assignments/auto-submitted-keywords. Keywords are registered using the "Specification Required" policy [IANA] (Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, “Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs,” May 2008.).

This defines the template to be used to register new keywords. Initial entries to this registry follow in Section 6.3 (Initial registration of Auto-Submitted header field keywords).

To: iana@iana.org
Subject: Registration of new auto-submitted header field keyword
Keyword value: [the text value of the field]
Description: [a brief explanation of the purpose of this value]
Parameters: [list any keyword-specific parameters, specify their meanings, specify whether they are required or optional; use "none" if there are none]
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: [identifies the specification that defines the value being registered]
Contact: [name and email address to contact for further information]



 TOC 

6.3.  Initial registration of Auto-Submitted header field keywords

The following are the initial keywords to be registered for the Auto-Submitted header field, to be entered in http://www.iana.org/assignments/auto-submitted-keywords.

Keyword value: no
Description: Indicates that a message was NOT automatically generated, but was created by a human. It is the equivalent to the absence of an Auto-Submitted header altogether.
Parameters: none
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834
Contact: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>

Keyword value: auto-generated
Description: Indicates that a message was generated by an automatic process, and is not a direct response to another message.
Parameters: none
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834
Contact: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>

Keyword value: auto-replied
Description: Indicates that a message was automatically generated as a direct response to another message.
Parameters: none
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834
Contact: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>

Keyword value: auto-notified
Description: Indicates that a message was generated by a Sieve notification system.
Parameters: owner-email, owner-token. Both optional, both refer to the owner of the Sieve script that generated this message. See the relevant RFC for details.
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: this RFC
Contact: Michael Haardt <michael.haardt@freenet.ag>



 TOC 

7.  References



 TOC 

7.1. Normative References

[IANA] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, “Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs,” BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.
[Kwds] Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” RFC 2119, March 1997.
[Notify] Melnikov, A., Ed., Leiba, B., Ed., Segmuller, W., and T. Martin, “Sieve Extension: Notifications,” work in progress, draft-ietf-sieve-notify, December 2007.
[RFC3834] Moore, K., “Recommendations for Automatic Responses to Electronic Mail,” RFC 3834, August 2004.
[RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., “Internet Message Format,” RFC 5322, October 2008.
[Sieve] Guenther, P., Ed. and T. Showalter, Ed., “Sieve: An Email Filtering Language,” RFC 5228, January 2008.
[mailto] Hoffman, P., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, “The mailto URL scheme,” RFC 2368, July 1998.


 TOC 

7.2. Non-Normative References

[RFC5321] Klensin, J., Ed., “Simple Mail Transfer Protocol,” RFC 5321, October 2008.
[Variables] Homme, K., “Sieve Extension: Variables,” RFC 5229, January 2008.


 TOC 

Authors' Addresses

  Barry Leiba
  IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
  19 Skyline Drive
  Hawthorne, NY 10532
  US
Phone:  +1 914 784 7941
Email:  leiba@watson.ibm.com
  
  Michael Haardt
  freenet.de GmbH
  Willstaetter Str. 13
  Duesseldorf, NRW 40549
  Germany
Phone:  +49 241 53087 520
Email:  michael.haardt@freenet.ag


 TOC 

Full Copyright Statement

Intellectual Property