[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 RFC 5598

MARID / SMTP                                                  D. Crocker
Internet-Draft                               Brandenburg InternetWorking
Expires: January 1, 2005                                    July 3, 2004


                       Internet Mail Architecture
                      draft-crocker-email-arch-01

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
   patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
   and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   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 January 1, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   Over its thirty year history, Internet mail has undergone significant
   changes in scale and complexity.  The first standardized architecture
   for email specified a simple split between the user world and the
   transmission world, in the form of Mail User Agents (MUA) and Mail
   Transfer Agents (MTA).  Over time each of these has divided into
   multiple, specialized modules.  Public discussion and agreement about
   the nature of the changes to Internet mail has not kept pace, and
   abuses of the Internet mail service have brought these issues into
   stark relief.  This draft offers clarifications and enhancements, to
   provide a more consistent base for community discussion of email



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   service problems and proposed email service enhancements.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   1.1 Service Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   1.2 Document Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   1.3 Discussion venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Email Actor Roles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.1 User . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.2 Relay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   2.3 Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.  Email Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.1 Mailbox Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.2 Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   3.3 Message Identifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   3.4 Identity Reference Convention  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.  Email System Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.1 Architectural Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   4.2 Operational Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   4.3 Layers of Identity References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   5.  Message Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   5.1 Envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   5.2 Message Headers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   5.3 Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   6.  Two Levels of Store-And-Forward  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   6.1 MTA Relaying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   6.2 MUA Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
       Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 35


















Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


1.  Introduction

   Over its thirty year history, Internet mail has undergone significant
   changes in scale and complexity.  The first standardized architecture
   for email specified a simple split between the user world and the
   transmission world, in the form of Mail User Agents (MUA) and Mail
   Transfer Agents (MTA).  Over time each of these has sub-divided into
   more specialized modules.

   The basic style and use of names, addresses and message structure
   have remained remarkably constant.  However each has benefited from
   significant elaborations.  Public discussion and agreement about the
   nature of these changes has not kept pace, and abuses of the Internet
   mail service have brought these issues into stark relief.

   The current draft seeks to:

   1.  Document changes that have taken place in refining the email
       model

   2.  Clarify functional roles for the architectural components

   3.  Clarify identity-related issues, across the email service

   4.  Provide a common venue for further defining and citing modern
       Internet mail architecture


1.1  Service Overview

   End-to-end Internet mail exchange is accomplished by using a
   standardized infrastructure comprising:

   1.  An email object

   2.  Global addressing

   3.  A connected sequence of point-to-point transfer mechanisms

   4.  No prior arrangement between originator and recipient

   5.  No prior arrangement between point-to-point transfer services,
       over the open Internet

   The end-to-end portion of the service is the message.  Broadly the
   message, itself, is divided between handling control information and
   user message payload.




Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   A precept to the design of Internet mail is to permit
   interoperability with no prior, direct administrative arrangement
   between the participants.  That is, all participants rely on having
   the core services be universally supported, either directly or
   through gateways that translate between Internet mail standards and
   other email conventions.

   For localized environments (edge networks) prior, administrative
   arrangement can include access control, routing and lookup service
   configuration.  In recent years one change to local environments is
   an increased requirement for authentication or, at least,
   accountability.  In these cases, the server performs explicit
   validation of the client's identity.

1.2  Document Changes

   The major changes from the previous version of this document are:

   Actors: Addition of the User/Relay/Provider construct of actors.
      Labeling of these roles has also been added to the tables showing
      architectural function.  The distinction of Actors, versus
      architectural system components, is not typical for discussions of
      email.  Therefore it is likely that the construct needs
      refinement.  In particular, please review the table assignments.

   MDA/MS/MUA: The construct of the Message Store has been added.  This
      change is intended to reflect the consensus view from online
      discussion, rather than being the editor's view, which has in any
      event changed...  However it is likely that it will need
      significant revision or replacement.  Please review it carefully!

   Message Identifiers: Discussion of message identifiers has been added
      to the section on Email Identities.


1.3  Discussion venue

   NOTE: This document is the work of a single person, about a topic
      with considerable diversity of views.  It is certain to be
      incomplete and inaccurate.  Some errors simply need to be
      reported; they will get fixed.  Others need to be discussed by the
      community, because the real requirement is to develop common
      community views.  To this end, please treat the draft as a
      touchstone for public discussion.

   Discussion about this document should be directed to the:

   <mailto:ietf-smtp@imc.org>



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   mailing list.  The <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/index.htm> is the
   most active, long-standing venue for discussing email architecture.
   Although this list is primarily for discussing only the SMTP
   protocol, it is recommended that discussion of this draft take place
   on that mailing list.  This list tends to attend to end-to-end
   infrastructure and architecture issues more than other email-related
   mailing lists.

   o  The <mailto:ietf-822@imc.org> list also is pertinent
      <http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/index.html>.  However it's focus is
      on the message, itself, so that transfer issues are typically
      excluded.  In addition, this list has not be very active recently.

   o  A currently active mailing list, likely to impact Internet mail
      architecture, is <mailto:ietf-mxcomp@imc.org>.  This list is
      devoted to matters of spam control, so that underlying matters of
      Internet mail architecture are probably best deferred to a more
      general list, such as ietf-smtp.

   o  Also currently active is the <mailto:lemonade@ietf.org>, which is
      considering enhancements for interaction between thin MUAs and
      MSAs.


2.  Email Actor Roles

   Discussion of email architecture requires distinguishing different
   actors within the service, and being clear about the job each
   performs in the overall handling of mail.  For this level of
   discussion "the service" has the task of performing a single,
   end-to-end transfer.  Protracted, iterative exchanges, such as those
   used for collaboration over time, are beyond the scope of (this
   version of) this document.  Actors often will be associated with
   entirely independent organizations from other actors participating in
   an end-to-end email transfer.
















Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   The following depicts the relationships among participants in
   Internet Mail.  Although related to a technical architecture, its
   focus is on participant responsibilities, rather than functional
   modules.  Hence the labels used are different than for classic email
   architecture.  This figure depicts the relationships among the
   actors.  It shows the Submitter as distinct from the Originator,
   although it is common for them to be the same actor.  The figure also
   shows multiple Relays in the sequence.  It is legal to have only one,
   and for intra-organization mail services, this is common.

                        User (Originator, Author)
                          |                   -+
                      Submitter                | Provider
                          |                   -+
                          |                   -+
                        Relay                  |
                        |   |                  | Provider
                        |   Relay              |
                        |   |                 -+
                        |   |                            -+
                        |   |                 -+          |
                        |   User (Forwarder)   |          |
                        |   [ Intermediate ]   |          |Provider
                        |   [  Recipient   ]   |          |
                        |   [  Originator  ]   | Provider |
                        |   [  Submitter   ]   |          |
                        |   |                 -+          |
                        |   Relay                         |
                        |   |                            -+
                        |   |                 -+
                        Relay                  |
                          |                    | Provider
                        User (Recipient)       |
                                              -+


2.1  User

   Users are customers of the email relaying service.  They represent
   the sources and sinks of that service.

   Three types of users are distinguished:

2.1.1  Originator

   Also called "Author", this is a user-level participant responsible
   for creating original content and requesting its transmission.  The
   email service operates to send and deliver mail among Originators and



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   Recipients.

2.1.2  Submitter

   The Submitter is responsible for ensuring that a message is valid for
   posting and then submitting it into the mail transfer service.  It
   primarily serves the Originator and often it is the same entity.

   The Submitter has the responsibility for any additional
   originator-related administrative tasks associated with message
   transmission and delivery.  Notably this pertains to error and
   delivery notices.

   It may be helpful to think of the Submitter as more like the editor
   or publisher of a periodical, rather than simply the administrative
   assistant for the Originator.  Hence, the Submitter is best held
   accountable for the message content, even when they did not create
   any or most of it.

2.1.3  Recipient

   The Recipient is a consumer of delivered content.  The recipient is
   specified as an addressee, in the envelope.

2.1.4  Forwarder

   Email often transits intermediate, user-level points, called
   Forwarders.  The task of a Forwarder is to perform additional
   processing, such as replacing one target address for one or more
   others, and then submitting the message for further transmission.
   Examples are recipient-controlled aliasing and, of course, mailing
   list redistribution services.  A Forwarder performs a natural
   sequence of email steps:

   o  Service the mailbox specified in the envelope and accept arriving
      messages.

   o  Reformulate message content and addressing, according to the
      policies of the administrator of the Forwarder.  Request (further)
      message transmission.  Note that an Intermediate Originator
      operates with dual allegiance, notably its operating authority,
      such as the mailing list administrator, as well as the "original"
      originator.

   o  Perform the usual Submitter tasks.






Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


2.2  Relay

   A mail relay performs email transfer-service routing and
   store-and-forward.  It (re-)transmits the message on towards it
   recipient(s).  A basic transfer operation is between a client and a
   server Relay.  A set of Relays composes a mail handling service
   network.  This is above any underlying packet-switching network that
   they might be using.

2.3  Provider

   Providers operate component services.  As shown in the Figure, it is
   possible for Providers to host services for other Providers.  Common
   examples are:

   Enterprise Service Providers: Operating an organization's internal
      data and/or mail operations.

   Internet Service Providers: Operating underlying data communication
      services that, in turn, are used by one or more Relays and Users.
      It is not their job to perform email functions, but to provide an
      environment in which those functions can be performed.

   Mail Service Providers: Operate email services, such as for
      end-users, or mailing lists.

   Operational pragmatics often dictate that Providers be involved in
   detailed administration and enforcement issues, to help insure the
   health of the overall Internet Mail service.

3.  Email Identities

   Internet mail uses two forms of identity.  The most common is the
   mailbox address <addr-spec> [RFC2822].  The other form is the <domain
   name> [RFC1034].

3.1  Mailbox Addresses

   An addr-spec has two distinct parts, divided by an at-sign ("@").
   The right-hand side contains a globally interpreted name for an
   administrative domain.  This domain name might refer to an entire
   organization, or to a collection of machines integrated into a
   homogeneous service, or to a single machine.  Domain names are
   defined and operated through the DNS [RFC1034], [RFC1035].

   The left-hand side of the at-sign contains a string that is globally
   opaque and is called the <local-part>.  It is to be interpreted only
   by the entity specified in the address's right-hand side.  All other



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   entities must treat the local-part as a uninterpreted, literal string
   and must preserve all of its original details.  As such, its
   distribution is equivalent to sending a "cookie" that is only
   interpreted upon being returned to its originator.

3.1.1  Global Standards for Local-Part

   It is common for sites to have local conventions for sub-structure to
   the left-hand side of an addr-spec.  This permits sub-addressing,
   such as for distinguishing different discussion groups by the same
   participant.  However it must be stressed that these conventions are
   strictly private to the user's organization and must not be
   interpreted by any domain except the one listed in the right-hand
   side of the add-spec.

   A small class of addresses have an elaboration on basic email
   addressing, with a standardized, global schema for the local-part.
   These are conventions between originating end-systems and recipient
   gateways, and they are invisible to the public email transfer
   infrastructure.  When an originator is explicitly sending via a
   gateway out of the Internet, there are coding conventions for the
   local-part, so that the originator can formulate instructions for the
   gateway.  Standardized examples of this are the telephone numbering
   formats for VPIM [RFC2421], such as "+16137637582@vpim.example.com",
   and iFax [RFC2304], such as "FAX=+12027653000/
   T33S=1387@ifax.example.com".

3.1.2  Scope of Email Address Use

   Email addresses are being used far beyond their original email
   transfer and delivery role.  In practical terms, email strings have
   become a common form of user identity on the Internet.  What is
   essential, then, is to be clear about the nature and role of an
   identity string in a particular context and to be clear about the
   entity responsible for setting that string.

3.2  Domain Names

   A domain name is a global reference to an Internet resource, such as
   a host, a service or a network.  A name usually maps to one or more
   IP Addresses.  A domain name can be administered to refer to
   individual users, but this is not common practice.  The name is
   structure as a hierarchical sequence of sub-names, separated by dots
   (".").

   When not part of a mailbox address, a domain name is used in Internet
   mail to refer to a node that took action upon the message, such as
   providing the administrative scope for a message identifier, or



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   performing transfer processing.

3.3  Message Identifers

   Message identifiers have two distinct parts, divided by an at-sign
   ("@").  The right-hand side contains a globally interpreted name for
   the administrative domain assigning the identifier.  The left-hand
   side of the at-sign contains a string that is globally opaque and
   serves to uniquely identify the message within the domain referenced
   on the right-hand side.  The duration of uniqueness for the message
   identifier is undefined.

   The identifier may be assigned by the user or by any component of the
   system along the path.  Although Internet mail standards provide for
   a single identifier, more than one is sometimes assigned.

3.4  Identity Reference Convention

   In this document, fields references to identities are labeled in a
   two-part, dotted notation.  The first part cites the document
   defining the identity and the second defines the name of the
   identity.  Hence, <RFC2822.From> is the From field in an email
   content header, and <RFC2821.MailFrom> is the address in the SMTP
   "Mail From" command.

4.  Email System Architecture

   NOTE: A discussion about any interesting system architecture is often
      complicated by confusion between architecture versus
      implementation.  An architecture defines the conceptual functions
      of a service, divided into discrete conceptual modules.  An
      implementation of that architecture may combine or separate
      architectural components, as needed for a particular operational
      environment.  It is important not to confuse the engineering
      decisions that are made to implement a product, with the
      architectural abstractions used to define conceptual functions.

   Modern Internet email architecture distinguishes four types of
   components, arranged to support a store-and-forward service
   architecture:











Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


       +-----------<-oMUA <-------------------------------+
       |               |      < smtp,                     |
   (envelope)          V        submission                |
    RFC2822           MSA <-------------------------+     |
      MIME             |      < smtp                |     |
       |              MTA                          dsn    |
       |               |      < smtp                |     |
       |              MTA ->----------------------->+     |
       |               |      < smtp                      |
       |               .                                  |
       |               .                                  |
       |               .                                  |
       |               V                                  |
       |              MTA                                 |
       |               |      < local, smtp, lmtp         |
       |              MDA <-------------------------+     |
       |              | |                           |     |
       |           MS-1 |     < local,              |     |
       |           |  | |     < pop,               sieve  |
       |           |  | |     < imap,               |     |
       |           |  MS-2    < smtp, or            |    mdn
       |           |  |       < web                 |     |
       V           |  V                             |     |
       +---------> rMUA ->--------------------------+-----+

   Software implementations of these architectural components often
   compress them, such as having the same software do MSA, MTA and MDA
   functions.  However the requirements for each of these components of
   the architecture are becoming more extensive.  So, their separation
   is increasingly common.

4.1  Architectural Components

4.1.1  Mail User Agent (MUA)

   An <MUA> works on behalf of end-users and end-user applications.  It
   is their "representative" within the email service.

   At the origination side of the service, the <oMUA> is used to create
   a message and perform initial "submission" into the transfer
   infrastructure, via an <MSA>.  It may also perform any creation- and
   posting-time archival.  An MUA outbox is part of the origination-side
   MUA.

   The recipient-side <rMUA> works on behalf of the end-user to process
   received mail.  This includes generating user-level return control
   messages, display and disposition of the received message, and
   closing or expanding the user communication loop, by initiating



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   replies and forwarding new messages.

   An MUA may, itself, have a distributed architecture, such as
   implementing a "thin" user interface module on a limited end-user
   device, with the bulk of the MUA functionality operated remotely on a
   more capable server.  An example of such an architecture might use
   IMAP [RFC3501] for most of the interactions between an MUA client and
   an MUA server.

   A special class of MUA functions perform message forwarding, as
   discussed in the [2] section.

   Identity fields set by the MUA include:

   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
   | Identity             | Actor                | Description         |
   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
   | RFC2822.From         | Originator           | Names and addresses |
   |                      |                      | for author(s) of    |
   |                      |                      | the message content |
   |                      |                      | are listed in the   |
   |                      |                      | From header         |
   | RFC2822.Reply-To     | Originator           | If a message        |
   |                      |                      | recipient sends a   |
   |                      |                      | message that would  |
   |                      |                      | otherwise use the   |
   |                      |                      | RFC2822.From field  |
   |                      |                      | information in the  |
   |                      |                      | original message,   |
   |                      |                      | they are to use the |
   |                      |                      | contents of the     |
   |                      |                      | RFC2822.Reply-To    |
   |                      |                      | field instead. In   |
   |                      |                      | other words, this   |
   |                      |                      | field is a direct   |
   |                      |                      | override of the     |
   |                      |                      | From field, for     |
   |                      |                      | responses from      |
   |                      |                      | recipients.         |
   | RFC2822.Sender       | Submitter            | This specifies the  |
   |                      |                      | address responsible |
   |                      |                      | for submission into |
   |                      |                      | the transfer        |
   |                      |                      | service. For        |
   |                      |                      | efficiency, this    |
   |                      |                      | field should be     |
   |                      |                      | omitted if it       |
   |                      |                      | contains the same   |



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   |                      |                      | address as          |
   |                      |                      | RFC2822.From.       |
   |                      |                      | However this does   |
   |                      |                      | not mean there is   |
   |                      |                      | no Sender           |
   |                      |                      | specified. Rather,  |
   |                      |                      | it means that that  |
   |                      |                      | header is virtual   |
   |                      |                      | and that the        |
   |                      |                      | address in the From |
   |                      |                      | field must be used. |
   |                      |                      | Specification of    |
   |                      |                      | the error return    |
   |                      |                      | addresses (the      |
   |                      |                      | "bounces" address,  |
   |                      |                      | contained in        |
   |                      |                      | RFC2821.MailFrom)   |
   |                      |                      | is made by the      |
   |                      |                      | Sender. Typically   |
   |                      |                      | the bounce address  |
   |                      |                      | is the same as the  |
   |                      |                      | Sender address.     |
   |                      |                      | However some usage  |
   |                      |                      | scenarios require   |
   |                      |                      | it to be different. |
   | RFC2822.To,          | Recipient            | These specify MUA   |
   | RFC2822.CC           |                      | recipient           |
   |                      |                      | addresses. The      |
   |                      |                      | distinction between |
   |                      |                      | To and CC is        |
   |                      |                      | subjective.         |
   |                      |                      | Generally, a To     |
   |                      |                      | addressee is        |
   |                      |                      | considered primary  |
   |                      |                      | and is expected to  |
   |                      |                      | take action on the  |
   |                      |                      | message. A CC       |
   |                      |                      | addressee typically |
   |                      |                      | receives a copy     |
   |                      |                      | only for their      |
   |                      |                      | information.        |
   | RFC2822.BCC          | Recipient            | A message might be  |
   |                      |                      | copied to an        |
   |                      |                      | addressee who is    |
   |                      |                      | not to be disclosed |
   |                      |                      | to the RFC2822.TO   |
   |                      |                      | or RFC2822.CC       |
   |                      |                      | recipients. The BCC |



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   |                      |                      | header indicates a  |
   |                      |                      | message copy to     |
   |                      |                      | such a recipient.   |
   |                      |                      | Typically, the      |
   |                      |                      | field lists no      |
   |                      |                      | addresses or only   |
   |                      |                      | lists the address   |
   |                      |                      | of the single       |
   |                      |                      | recipient receiving |
   |                      |                      | the copy. This      |
   |                      |                      | ensures that even   |
   |                      |                      | other BCC           |
   |                      |                      | recipients do not   |
   |                      |                      | know of each other. |
   |                      |                      | An MUA will         |
   |                      |                      | typically make      |
   |                      |                      | separate postings   |
   |                      |                      | for TO and CC       |
   |                      |                      | recipients, versus  |
   |                      |                      | BCC recipients. The |
   |                      |                      | former will see no  |
   |                      |                      | indication that any |
   |                      |                      | BCCs were sent,     |
   |                      |                      | whereas the latter  |
   |                      |                      | have a BCC field    |
   |                      |                      | present. It might   |
   |                      |                      | be empty, contain a |
   |                      |                      | comment, or contain |
   |                      |                      | one or more BCC     |
   |                      |                      | addresses,          |
   |                      |                      | depending upon the  |
   |                      |                      | preferences or the  |
   |                      |                      | Originator.         |
   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+

                      Table 1: Message Identities


4.1.2  Mail Submission Agent (MSA)

   An <MSA> accepts the message submission from the oMUA and conditions
   it for insertion into the global email transfer network, according to
   the policies of the hosting network and the requirements of Internet
   standards.  It implements a server function to MUAs and a client
   function to MTAs (or MDAs).

   Examples of MSA-styled functions, in the world of paper mail, might
   range across the very different capabilities of administrative



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   assistants, postal drop boxes, and post office front-counter
   employees.

   The MUA/MSA interface can be implemented within single host and use
   private conventions for their interactions.  Historically,
   standards-based MUA/MSA interactions have used SMTP [RFC2821].
   However a recent alternative is SUBMISSION [RFC2476].  Although
   SUBMISSION derives from SMTP, it operates on a separate TCP port, and
   will typically impose distinct requirements, such as access
   authorization.

   Identities set by the MSA include:

   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
   | Identity             | Actor                | Description         |
   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
   | RFC2821.HELO or      | Submitter            | The MSA may specify |
   | RFC2821.EHLO         |                      | its hosting domain  |
   |                      |                      | identity for the    |
   |                      |                      | SMTP HELO or EHLO   |
   |                      |                      | command operation.  |
   | RFC2821.MailFrom     | Submitter            | This is an          |
   |                      |                      | end-to-end string   |
   |                      |                      | that specifies an   |
   |                      |                      | email address for   |
   |                      |                      | receiving return    |
   |                      |                      | control             |
   |                      |                      | information, such   |
   |                      |                      | as "bounces". The   |
   |                      |                      | name of this field  |
   |                      |                      | is misleading,      |
   |                      |                      | because it is not   |
   |                      |                      | required to specify |
   |                      |                      | either the author   |
   |                      |                      | or the agent        |
   |                      |                      | responsible for     |
   |                      |                      | submitting the      |
   |                      |                      | message. Rather,    |
   |                      |                      | the agent           |
   |                      |                      | responsible for     |
   |                      |                      | submission          |
   |                      |                      | specifies the       |
   |                      |                      | RFC2821.MailFrom    |
   |                      |                      | address. Ultimately |
   |                      |                      | the simple basis    |
   |                      |                      | for deciding what   |
   |                      |                      | address needs to be |
   |                      |                      | in the              |



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   |                      |                      | RFC2821.MailFrom is |
   |                      |                      | to determine what   |
   |                      |                      | address needs to be |
   |                      |                      | informed about      |
   |                      |                      | transmission-level  |
   |                      |                      | problems (and,      |
   |                      |                      | possibly,           |
   |                      |                      | successes.)         |
   | RFC2821.Rcpt-To      | Recipient            | This specifies the  |
   |                      |                      | MUA inbox address   |
   |                      |                      | of a recipient. The |
   |                      |                      | string might not be |
   |                      |                      | visible in the      |
   |                      |                      | message content     |
   |                      |                      | headers. For        |
   |                      |                      | example, the        |
   |                      |                      | message destination |
   |                      |                      | address headers,    |
   |                      |                      | such as RFC2822.To, |
   |                      |                      | might specify a     |
   |                      |                      | mailing list        |
   |                      |                      | address, while the  |
   |                      |                      | RFC2821.Rcpt-To     |
   |                      |                      | address specifies a |
   |                      |                      | member of that      |
   |                      |                      | list.               |
   | RFC2821.Received     | Submitter            | An MSA may record a |
   |                      |                      | Received header, to |
   |                      |                      | indicate initial    |
   |                      |                      | submission trace    |
   |                      |                      | information,        |
   |                      |                      | including           |
   |                      |                      | originating host    |
   |                      |                      | and MSA host domain |
   |                      |                      | names and/or IP     |
   |                      |                      | Addresses.          |
   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+

                        Table 2: MSA Identities


4.1.3  Mail Transfer Agent (MTA)

   An <MTA> relays a message to another other MTA or to an <MDA>, in a
   point-to-point exchange.  Relaying is performed by a sequence of
   MTAs, until the message reaches its destination MDA.  Hence an MTA
   implements both client and server MTA functionality.




Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   The basic functionality of an MTA is similar to that of a packet
   switch or IP router.  That is, it does email store-and-forward email,
   with a routing decision determining where the next-hop destination
   shall be.  The primary "routing" mechanism for Internet mail is the
   DNS MX record [RFC1035].  As with most "link layer" mechanisms
   Internet mail's SMTP supports a basic level of reliability, by virtue
   of providing for retransmission after al transfer failure.  However
   the degree of persistence by an MTA can be highly variable.

   However email objects are typically much larger than the payload of a
   packet or datagram, and the end-to-end latencies are typically much
   higher.  Contrary to typical packet switches (and Instant Messaging
   services) Internet mail MTAs typically store messages in a manner
   that allows recovery across services interruptions, such as host
   system shutdown.

   Internet mail primarily uses SMTP [RFC2821], [RFC0821] to effect
   point-to-point transfers between peer MTAs.  Other transfer
   mechanisms include Batch SMTP [RFC2442] and ODMR [RFC2645]

   An important characteristic of MTA-MTA communications, over the open
   Internet, is that they do not require prior arrangement between the
   independent administrations operating the different MTAs.  Given the
   importance of spontaneity and serendipity in the world of human
   communications, this lack of prearrangement, between the
   participants, is a core benefit of Internet mail and remains a core
   requirement for it.

   Identities set by the MTA include:

   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
   | Identity             | Actor                | Description         |
   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
   | RFC2821.HELO         | Relay                | The MTA may specify |
   |                      |                      | its hosting domain  |
   |                      |                      | identity for the    |
   |                      |                      | SMTP HELO or EHLO   |
   |                      |                      | command operation.  |
   | RFC2821.Return-Path  | Originator           | The MDA records the |
   |                      |                      | RFC2821.MailFrom    |
   |                      |                      | address into an     |
   |                      |                      | RFC2822 header      |
   |                      |                      | named Return-Path.  |
   | RFC2822.Received     | Relay                | An MTA must record  |
   |                      |                      | a Received header,  |
   |                      |                      | to indicate trace   |
   |                      |                      | information,        |
   |                      |                      | including source    |



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   |                      |                      | host and receiving  |
   |                      |                      | host domain names   |
   |                      |                      | and/or IP           |
   |                      |                      | Addresses.          |
   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+

                        Table 3: MTA Identities


4.1.4  Mail Delivery Agent (MDA)

   The <MDA> delivers email to the recipient's inbox.

   An MDA can provide distinctive, address-based functionality, made
   possible by its detailed knowledge of the properties of the
   destination address.  This knowledge might also be present earlier in
   an MTA relaying sequence that ends with the MDA, such as at an
   organizational gateway.  However it is required for the MDA, if only
   because the MDA must know where to store the message.  This knowledge
   is used to achieve differential handling of messages.

   Using Internet protocols, delivery is effected with POP [RFC1939],
   IMAP [RFC3501].  SMTP permits "push" delivery to the recipient
   system, at the imitative of the upstream email service.  POP is used
   for "pull" delivery at the initiative of the recipient system.
   Notably, SMTP and POP effect a transfer of message control from the
   email service to the recipient host.  In contrast, IMAP provides
   on-going, interactive access to a message store, and does not effect
   a transfer of message control to the end-user host.  Instead, control
   stays with the message store host that is being access by the user.

   Identities set by the MDA include:

   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
   | Identity             | Actor                | Description         |
   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
   | RFC2821.HELO or      | Relay                | The MDA may specify |
   | RFC2821.EHLO         |                      | its hosting domain  |
   |                      |                      | identity for the    |
   |                      |                      | SMTP HELO or EHLO   |
   |                      |                      | command operation.  |
   | RFC2822.Received     | h                    | An MTA must record  |
   |                      |                      | a Received header,  |
   |                      |                      | to indicate trace   |
   |                      |                      | information,        |
   |                      |                      | including source    |
   |                      |                      | host and receiving  |
   |                      |                      | host domain names   |



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   |                      |                      | and/or IP           |
   |                      |                      | Addresses.          |
   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+

                        Table 4: MDA Identities


4.1.5  Message Store

   An MUA's uses a long-term Message Store (MS).  A rich set of choices
   for the use of that store derives from permitting more than one to be
   associated with a single user, demonstrated as MS-1 and MS-2 in the
   Figure.  MS-1 is shown as being remote from the MUA and MS-2 as being
   local.  Further the relationship between two message store may vary.
   Between the MDA and the MUA, these choices are supported by a wide
   variety of protocol options.

   The operational relationship among two MSs can be:

   Online: Only a remote MS is used, with messages being accessible only
      when the MUA is attached to the MS, and the MUA repeatedly fetches
      all or part of a message, from one session to the next.

   Offline: The MS is local to the user, and messages are moved from any
      remote store, rather than (also) being retained there.

   Disconnected: A remote MS and a local MS synchronize all or parts of
      their contents, while connected.  The user may make changes while
      disconnected, and the two stores are re-synchronized upon
      reconnection.


4.2  Operational Configuration

   Mail service components can be arranged into numerous organizational
   structures, each with independent software and administration.  One
   common arrangement is to distinguish:

   1.  an open, core, global email transfer infrastructure

   2.  independent transfer services in networks at the edge of the core

   3.  end-user services

   Edge networks may use proprietary email standards.  However the
   distinction between "public" network and edge network transfer
   services is primarily significant because it highlights the need for
   concern over interaction and protection between independent



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   administrations.  In particular, this distinctions calls for
   additional care in assessing transitions of responsibility, as well
   as the accountability and authorization relationships among
   participants in email transfer.

   On the other hand, real-world operations of Internet mail
   environments do impose boundaries such as access control at
   organizational firewalls to the Internet.  It should be noted that
   the current Internet Mail architecture offers no special constructs
   for these configuration choices.  The current design of Internet mail
   is for a seamless, end-to-end store-and-forward sequence.  It is
   possible that the architectural enhancement will not require new
   protocols, but rather will require clarification of best practises,
   as exemplified by a recent effort [ID-spamops]

4.3  Layers of Identity References

   For a message in transit, the core identity fields combine into

    +-----------------+--------------+-----------------------------+
    | Layer           | Field        | Set By                      |
    +-----------------+--------------+-----------------------------+
    | Message Content | MIME Headers | Originator                  |
    | Message Headers | From         | Originator                  |
    |                 | Sender       | Submitter                   |
    |                 | Reply-To     | Originator                  |
    |                 | To, CC, BCC  | Originator                  |
    |                 | Received     | Submitter, Relay, Recipient |
    |                 | Return-Path  | MDA from MailFrom           |
    | SMTP            | HELO         | Latest Relay Client         |
    |                 | MailFrom     | Submitter                   |
    |                 | RCPT-TO      | Submitter                   |
    | IP              | IP Address   | Latest Relay Client         |
    +-----------------+--------------+-----------------------------+


5.  Message Data

5.1  Envelope

   Information that is directly used or produced by the email transfer
   service is called the "envelope".  It controls and records handling
   activities by the transfer service.  Internet mail has a fragmented
   framework for handling this "handling" information.  The envelope
   exists partly in the transfer protocol SMTP [RFC2821] and partly in
   the message object [RFC2822].

   Direct envelope addressing information, as well as optional transfer



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   directives, are carried in-band by MTAs.  All other envelope
   information, such as trace records, is carried within the content
   headers.  Upon delivery, SMTP-level envelope information is typically
   encoded within additional content headers, such as Return-Path and
   Received (From and For).

5.2  Message Headers

   Headers are attribute/value pairs covering an extensible range of
   email service, user content and user transaction meta-information.
   The core set of headers is defined in [RFC2822], [RFC0822].  It is
   common to extend this set, for different applications.  A complete
   set of registered headers is being developed through [ID-hdr-reg].

   One danger with placing additional information in headers is that
   gateways often alter or delete them.

5.3  Body

   The body of a message might simply be lines of ASCII text or it might
   be structured into a composition of multi-media, body-part
   attachments, using MIME [RFC2045], [RFC2046], [RFC2047], [RFC2048],
   and [RFC2049].  It should be noted that MIME structures each
   body-part into a recursive set of MIME Header meta-data and MIME
   Content sections.

6.  Two Levels of Store-And-Forward

   Basic email transfer is accomplished with an asynchronous
   store-and-forward communication infrastructure.  This means that
   moving a message from an originator to a recipient involves a
   sequence of independent transmissions through some number of
   intermediaries, called MTAs.  A very different task is the user-level
   process of re-posting a message through a new submission process,
   after final delivery for an earlier transfer sequence.  Such
   MUA-based re-posting shares some functionality with basic MTA
   relaying, but it enjoys a degree of freedom with both addressing and
   content that is not available to MTAs.

   The primary "routing" mechanism for Internet mail is the DNS MX
   record [RFC1035].  It is an advertisement, by a recipient domain, of
   hosts that are able to relay mail to it, within the portion of the
   Internet served by this instance of the DNS.

6.1  MTA Relaying

   MTAs relay mail.  They are like packet-switches and IP routers.
   Their job is to make routing assessments and to move the message



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   payload data closer to the recipient.  It is not their job to
   reformulate the payload or to change addresses in the envelope or the
   content.

6.2  MUA Forwarding

   As discussed in <Forwarder> section, forwarding is performed by MUAs
   that take a received message and submit it back to the transfer
   service, for delivery to one or more different addresses.  A
   forwarded message may appear identical to a relayed message, such as
   for Alias forwarders, or it may have minimal similarity, as with a
   Reply.

6.2.1  MUA Basic Forwarding

   The simplest type of forwarding involves creating an entirely new
   message, with new content, that includes the original message between
   Originator-1 and Recipient-1.  However this forwarded communication
   is between Recipient-1 (who could also be called Originator-2) and a
   new recipient, Recipient-2.  The forwarded message is therefore
   independent of the original message exchange and creates a new
   message dialogue.

6.2.2  MUA Re-Sending

   A recipient may wish to declare that an alternate addressee should
   take on responsibility for a message, or otherwise become involved in
   the original communication.  They do this through a user-level
   forwarding function, called re-sending.  The act of re-sending, or
   re-directing, splices a communication between Originator-1 and
   Recipient-1, to become a communication between Originator-1 and new
   Recipient-2.  In this case, the content of the new message is the old
   message, including preservation of the essential aspects of the
   original message's origination information.

















Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   Identities specified in a resent message include

   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
   | Identity             | Actor                | Description         |
   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
   | RFC2822.From         | Originator           | Names and email     |
   |                      |                      | addresses for the   |
   |                      |                      | original author(s)  |
   |                      |                      | of the message      |
   |                      |                      | content are         |
   |                      |                      | retained. The       |
   |                      |                      | free-form           |
   |                      |                      | (display-name)      |
   |                      |                      | portion of the      |
   |                      |                      | address might be    |
   |                      |                      | modified to provide |
   |                      |                      | informal reference  |
   |                      |                      | to the agent        |
   |                      |                      | responsible for the |
   |                      |                      | redirection.        |
   | RFC2822.Reply-To     | Originator           | If this field is    |
   |                      |                      | present in the      |
   |                      |                      | original message,   |
   |                      |                      | it should be        |
   |                      |                      | retained in the     |
   |                      |                      | Re-sent message.    |
   | RFC2822.Sender       | Submitter            | This field is       |
   |                      |                      | expected to contain |
   |                      |                      | the original Sender |
   |                      |                      | value.              |
   | RFC2822.TO,          | Recipient            | These specify the   |
   | RFC2822.CC,          |                      | original message    |
   | RFC2822.BCC          |                      | recipients.         |
   | RFC2822.Resent-From  | Intermediate         | The address of the  |
   |                      | Originator           | original recipient  |
   |                      |                      | who is redirecting  |
   |                      |                      | the message.        |
   |                      |                      | Otherwise, the same |
   |                      |                      | rules apply for the |
   |                      |                      | Resent-From field   |
   |                      |                      | as for an original  |
   |                      |                      | RFC2822.From field  |
   | RFC2822.Resent-Sende | Intermediate         | The address of the  |
   | r                    | Submitter            | agent responsible   |
   |                      |                      | for re-submitting   |
   |                      |                      | the message. For    |
   |                      |                      | efficiency, this    |
   |                      |                      | field should be     |



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   |                      |                      | omitted if it       |
   |                      |                      | contains the same   |
   |                      |                      | address as          |
   |                      |                      | RFC2822.Resent-From |
   |                      |                      | . However this does |
   |                      |                      | not mean there is   |
   |                      |                      | no Resend-Sender    |
   |                      |                      | specified. Rather,  |
   |                      |                      | it means that that  |
   |                      |                      | header is virtual   |
   |                      |                      | and that the        |
   |                      |                      | address in the      |
   |                      |                      | Resent-From field   |
   |                      |                      | must be used.       |
   |                      |                      | Specification of    |
   |                      |                      | the error return    |
   |                      |                      | addresses (the      |
   |                      |                      | "bounces" address,  |
   |                      |                      | contained in        |
   |                      |                      | RFC2821.MailFrom)   |
   |                      |                      | is made by the      |
   |                      |                      | Resent-Sender.      |
   |                      |                      | Typically the       |
   |                      |                      | bounce address is   |
   |                      |                      | the same as the     |
   |                      |                      | Resent-Sender       |
   |                      |                      | address. However    |
   |                      |                      | some usage          |
   |                      |                      | scenarios require   |
   |                      |                      | it to be different. |
   | RFC2822.Resent-To,   | Recipient            | The addresses of    |
   | RFC2822.Resent-cc,   |                      | the new recipients  |
   | RFC2822.Resent-bcc   |                      | who will now be     |
   |                      |                      | able to reply to    |
   |                      |                      | the original        |
   |                      |                      | author.             |
   | RFC2821.MailFrom     | Intermediate         | The agent           |
   |                      | Submitter            | responsible for     |
   |                      |                      | re-submission       |
   |                      |                      | (RFC2822.Resent-Sen |
   |                      |                      | der) is also        |
   |                      |                      | responsible for     |
   |                      |                      | specifying the new  |
   |                      |                      | RFC2821.MailFrom    |
   |                      |                      | address.            |
   | RFC2821.Rcpt-to      | Recipient            | This will contain   |
   |                      |                      | the address of a    |
   |                      |                      | new recipient       |



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   | RFC2822.Received     | Intermediate         | When re-sending a   |
   |                      | Submitter            | message, the        |
   |                      |                      | submission agent    |
   |                      |                      | may record a        |
   |                      |                      | Received header, to |
   |                      |                      | indicate the        |
   |                      |                      | transition from     |
   |                      |                      | original posting to |
   |                      |                      | resubmission.       |
   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+

                       Table 6: ReSent Identities


6.2.3  MUA Reply

   When a recipient formulates a response to a message, the new message
   is not typically viewed as being a "forwarding" of the original.

6.2.4  MUA Gateways

   Gateways perform the basic routing and transfer work of message
   relaying, but they also make any message or address modifications
   that are needed to send the message into the next messaging
   environment.  When a gateway connects two differing messaging
   services, its role is easy to identify and understand.  When it
   connects environments that have technical similarity, but may have
   significant administrative differences, it is easy to think that a
   gateway is merely an MTA.  The critical distinguish between an MTA
   and a gateway is that the latter modifies addresses and/or message
   content.




















Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   A gateway may set any identity field available to a regular MUA.
   Identities typically set by gateways include

   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
   | Identity             | Actor                | Description         |
   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
   | RFC2822.From         | Originator           | Names and email     |
   |                      |                      | addresses for the   |
   |                      |                      | original author(s)  |
   |                      |                      | of the message      |
   |                      |                      | content are         |
   |                      |                      | retained. As for    |
   |                      |                      | all original        |
   |                      |                      | addressing          |
   |                      |                      | information in the  |
   |                      |                      | message, the        |
   |                      |                      | gateway may         |
   |                      |                      | translate addresses |
   |                      |                      | in whatever way     |
   |                      |                      | will allow them     |
   |                      |                      | continue to be      |
   |                      |                      | useful in the       |
   |                      |                      | target environment. |
   | RFC2822.Reply-To     | Originator           | The gateway should  |
   |                      |                      | retain this         |
   |                      |                      | information, if it  |
   |                      |                      | is originally       |
   |                      |                      | present. The        |
   |                      |                      | ability to perform  |
   |                      |                      | a successful reply  |
   |                      |                      | by a gatewayed      |
   |                      |                      | recipient is a      |
   |                      |                      | typical test of     |
   |                      |                      | gateway             |
   |                      |                      | functionality.      |
   | RFC2822.Sender       | Submitter            | This may retain the |
   |                      |                      | original value or   |
   |                      |                      | may be set to a new |
   |                      |                      | address             |
   | RFC2822.TO,          | Recipient            | These usually       |
   | RFC2822.CC,          |                      | retain their        |
   | RFC2822.BCC          |                      | original addresses. |
   | RFC2821.MailFrom     | Submitter            | The agent           |
   |                      |                      | responsible for     |
   |                      |                      | gatewaying the      |
   |                      |                      | message may choose  |
   |                      |                      | to specify a new    |
   |                      |                      | address to receive  |



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   |                      |                      | handling notices.   |
   | RFC2822.Received     | Forwarder            | The gateway may     |
   |                      |                      | record a Received   |
   |                      |                      | header, to indicate |
   |                      |                      | the transition from |
   |                      |                      | original posting to |
   |                      |                      | the new messaging   |
   |                      |                      | environment.        |
   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+

                      Table 7: Gateway Identities


6.2.5  MUA Alias Handling

   A simple re-addressing facility that is available in most MDA
   implementations is called Aliasing.  It is performed just before
   placing a message into the specified recipient's inbox.  Instead, the
   message is submitted back to the transfer service, for delivery to
   one or more alternate addresses.  Although implemented as part of the
   message delivery service, this facility is strictly a recipient user
   function.  In effect it resubmits the message to a new address, on
   behalf of the listed recipient.

   What is most distinctive about this forwarding mechanism is how
   closely it compares to normal MTA store-and-forward.  In reality its
   only interesting difference is that it changes the RFC2821.RCPT-TO
   value.  Notably it does not typically change the RFC2821.Mailfrom

   An MDA that is re-posting a message to an alias typically changes
   only envelope information:

   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
   | Identity             | Actor                | Description         |
   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
   | RFC2822.TO,          | Recipient            | These retain their  |
   | RFC2822.CC,          |                      | original addresses. |
   | RFC2822.BCC          |                      |                     |
   | RFC2821.Rcpt-To      | Recipient            | This field contains |
   |                      |                      | an alias address.   |
   | RFC2821.MailFrom     | Intermediate         | The agent           |
   |                      | Submitter            | responsible for     |
   |                      |                      | submission to an    |
   |                      |                      | alias address will  |
   |                      |                      | usually retain the  |
   |                      |                      | original address to |
   |                      |                      | receive handling    |
   |                      |                      | notifications. The  |



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   |                      |                      | benefit of          |
   |                      |                      | retaining the       |
   |                      |                      | original MailFrom   |
   |                      |                      | value is to ensure  |
   |                      |                      | that the            |
   |                      |                      | origination-side    |
   |                      |                      | agent knows of that |
   |                      |                      | there has been a    |
   |                      |                      | delivery problem.   |
   |                      |                      | On the other hand,  |
   |                      |                      | the responsibility  |
   |                      |                      | for the problem     |
   |                      |                      | usually lies with   |
   |                      |                      | the recipient,      |
   |                      |                      | since the Alias     |
   |                      |                      | mechanism is        |
   |                      |                      | strictly under the  |
   |                      |                      | recipient's         |
   |                      |                      | control.            |
   | RFC2821.Received     | Intermediate         | The agent should    |
   |                      | Recipient            | record Received     |
   |                      |                      | information, to     |
   |                      |                      | indicate the        |
   |                      |                      | delivery to the     |
   |                      |                      | original address    |
   |                      |                      | and submission to   |
   |                      |                      | the alias address.  |
   |                      |                      | The trace of        |
   |                      |                      | Received headers    |
   |                      |                      | should include      |
   |                      |                      | everything from     |
   |                      |                      | original posting    |
   |                      |                      | through final       |
   |                      |                      | delivery to the     |
   |                      |                      | alias.              |
   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+

                       Table 8: Alias Identities


6.2.6  MUA Mailing Lists

   Mailing lists have explicit email addresses and forward messages to a
   list of subscribed members.  Mailing list processing is a user-level
   activity, outside of the core email transfer service.  The mailing
   list address is, therefore, associated with a distinct user-level
   entity that can perform arbitrary actions upon the original message,
   before submitting it to the mailing list membership.  Hence, mailing



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   lists are similar to gateways.

   Identities set by a mailing list processor, when submitting a
   message, include:

   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
   | Identity             | Actor                | Description         |
   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
   | RFC2919.List-id      | --                   | This provides a     |
   |                      |                      | global mailing list |
   |                      |                      | naming framework    |
   |                      |                      | that is independent |
   |                      |                      | of particular       |
   |                      |                      | hosts. Although     |
   |                      |                      | [RFC2919] is a      |
   |                      |                      | standards-track     |
   |                      |                      | specification, it   |
   |                      |                      | has not gained      |
   |                      |                      | significant         |
   |                      |                      | adoption.           |
   | RFC2369.List-*       | Recipient            | [RFC2369] defines a |
   |                      |                      | collection of       |
   |                      |                      | message headers for |
   |                      |                      | use by mailing      |
   |                      |                      | lists. In effect,   |
   |                      |                      | they supply         |
   |                      |                      | list-specific       |
   |                      |                      | parameters for      |
   |                      |                      | common mailing list |
   |                      |                      | user operations.    |
   |                      |                      | The identifiers for |
   |                      |                      | these operations    |
   |                      |                      | are for the list,   |
   |                      |                      | itself, and the     |
   |                      |                      | user-as-subscriber. |
   |                      |                      |                     |
   | RFC2822.From         | Originator           | Names and email     |
   |                      |                      | addresses for the   |
   |                      |                      | original author(s)  |
   |                      |                      | of the message      |
   |                      |                      | content are         |
   |                      |                      | specified.          |
   | RFC2822.Reply-To     | Originator           | Mailing lists have  |
   |                      |                      | introduced an       |
   |                      |                      | ambiguity for the   |
   |                      |                      | Reply-To field.     |
   |                      |                      | Some List           |
   |                      |                      | operations choose   |



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   |                      |                      | to force all        |
   |                      |                      | replies to go to    |
   |                      |                      | all list members.   |
   |                      |                      | They achieve this   |
   |                      |                      | by placing the list |
   |                      |                      | address into the    |
   |                      |                      | RFC2822.Reply-To    |
   |                      |                      | field. Hence,       |
   |                      |                      | direct, "private"   |
   |                      |                      | replies only to the |
   |                      |                      | original author     |
   |                      |                      | cannot be achieved  |
   |                      |                      | by using the MUA's  |
   |                      |                      | typical "reply to   |
   |                      |                      | author" function.   |
   |                      |                      | If the author       |
   |                      |                      | created a Reply-To  |
   |                      |                      | field, its          |
   |                      |                      | information is      |
   |                      |                      | lost.               |
   | RFC2822.Sender       | Submitter            | This will usually   |
   |                      |                      | specify the address |
   |                      |                      | of the agent        |
   |                      |                      | responsible for     |
   |                      |                      | mailing list        |
   |                      |                      | operations.         |
   |                      |                      | However, some       |
   |                      |                      | mailing lists       |
   |                      |                      | operate in a manner |
   |                      |                      | very similar to a   |
   |                      |                      | simple MTA relay,   |
   |                      |                      | so that they        |
   |                      |                      | preserve as much of |
   |                      |                      | the original        |
   |                      |                      | handling            |
   |                      |                      | information as      |
   |                      |                      | possible, including |
   |                      |                      | the original        |
   |                      |                      | RFC2822.Sender      |
   |                      |                      | field.              |
   | RFC2822.TO,          | Intermediate         | These will usually  |
   | RFC2822.CC           | Recipient            | contain the         |
   |                      |                      | original list of    |
   |                      |                      | recipient           |
   |                      |                      | addresses.          |
   | RFC2821.MailFrom     | Intermediate         | This may contain    |
   |                      | Submitter            | the original        |
   |                      |                      | address to be       |



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   |                      |                      | notified of         |
   |                      |                      | transmission        |
   |                      |                      | issues, or the      |
   |                      |                      | mailing list agent  |
   |                      |                      | may set it to       |
   |                      |                      | contain a new       |
   |                      |                      | notification        |
   |                      |                      | address. Typically, |
   |                      |                      | the value is set to |
   |                      |                      | a new address, so   |
   |                      |                      | that mailing list   |
   |                      |                      | members and posters |
   |                      |                      | are not burdened    |
   |                      |                      | with                |
   |                      |                      | transmission-relate |
   |                      |                      | d notifications.    |
   | RFC2821.Rcpt-To      | Recipient            | This contain the    |
   |                      |                      | address of a        |
   |                      |                      | mailing list        |
   |                      |                      | member.             |
   | RFC2821.Received     | Intermediate         | An Mailing List     |
   |                      | Recipient            | Agent should record |
   |                      |                      | a Received header,  |
   |                      |                      | to indicate the     |
   |                      |                      | transition from     |
   |                      |                      | original posting to |
   |                      |                      | mailing list        |
   |                      |                      | forwarding. The     |
   |                      |                      | Agent may choose to |
   |                      |                      | have the message    |
   |                      |                      | retain the original |
   |                      |                      | set of Received     |
   |                      |                      | headers or may      |
   |                      |                      | choose to remove    |
   |                      |                      | them. In the latter |
   |                      |                      | case, it should     |
   |                      |                      | ensure that the     |
   |                      |                      | original Received   |
   |                      |                      | headers are         |
   |                      |                      | otherwise           |
   |                      |                      | available, to       |
   |                      |                      | ensure later        |
   |                      |                      | accountability and  |
   |                      |                      | diagnostic access   |
   |                      |                      | to it.              |
   +----------------------+----------------------+---------------------+

                    Table 9: Mailing List Identities



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 31]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


7.  Security Considerations

   This document does not specify any new Internet mail functionality.
   Consequently it should introduce no new security considerations.

   However its discussion of the roles and responsibilities for
   different mail service modules, and the information they create,
   highlights the considerable security considerations that must be
   present when implementing any component of the Internet mail service.

8  References

   [ID-hdr-reg]
              "Registration of mail and MIME header fields",
              draft-klyne-hdrreg-mail-04.txt (work in progress), Apr
              2004.

   [ID-marid-core]
              Lyon, J. and M. Wong, "MTA Authentication Records in DNS",
              draft-ietf-marid-core-01.txt (work in progress), June
              2004.

   [ID-spamops]
              Hutzler, C., Crocker, D., Resnick, P., Sanderson, R. and
              E. Allman, "Email Submission Between Independent
              Networks", draft-spamops-00 (work in progress), March
              2004.

   [RFC0821]  Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC
              821, August 1982.

   [RFC0822]  Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet
              text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.

   [RFC1034]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
              STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [RFC1939]  Myers, J. and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3",
              STD 53, RFC 1939, May 1996.

   [RFC2033]  Myers, J., "Local Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2033,
              October 1996.

   [RFC2045]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 32]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


              Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.

   [RFC2046]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
              November 1996.

   [RFC2047]  Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
              Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text",
              RFC 2047, November 1996.

   [RFC2048]  Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose
              Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration
              Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 2048, November 1996.

   [RFC2049]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and
              Examples", RFC 2049, November 1996.

   [RFC2181]  Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
              Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.

   [RFC2298]  Fajman, R., "An Extensible Message Format for Message
              Disposition Notifications", RFC 2298, March 1998.

   [RFC2304]  Allocchio, C., "Minimal FAX address format in Internet
              Mail", RFC 2304, March 1998.

   [RFC2369]  Neufeld, G. and J. Baer, "The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax
              for Core Mail List Commands and their Transport through
              Message Header Fields", RFC 2369, July 1998.

   [RFC2421]  Vaudreuil, G. and G. Parsons, "Voice Profile for Internet
              Mail - version 2", RFC 2421, September 1998.

   [RFC2423]  Vaudreuil, G. and G. Parsons, "VPIM Voice Message MIME
              Sub-type Registration", RFC 2423, September 1998.

   [RFC2442]  "The Batch SMTP Media Type", RFC 2442, November 1998.

   [RFC2476]  Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission", RFC
              2476, December 1998.

   [RFC2645]  "On-Demand Mail Relay (ODMR) SMTP with Dynamic IP
              Addresses", RFC 2465, August 1999.

   [RFC2782]  Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P. and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
              specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
              February 2000.



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 33]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


   [RFC2821]  Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
              April 2001.

   [RFC2822]  Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April
              2001.

   [RFC2919]  Chandhok, R. and G. Wenger, "List-Id: A Structured Field
              and Namespace for the Identification of Mailing Lists",
              RFC 2919, March 2001.

   [RFC3028]  Showalter, T., "Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language", RFC
              3028, January 2001.

   [RFC3461]  Moore, K., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service
              Extension for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs)", RFC
              3461, January 2003.

   [RFC3501]  Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
              4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.

   [2]  <Forwarder>


Author's Address

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   675 Spruce Drive
   Sunnyvale, CA  94086
   USA

   Phone: +1.408.246.8253
   EMail: dcrocker@brandenburg.com

Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   The Email Architecture section derives from draft-hutzler-spamops
   [ID-spamops].  The text has been further elaborated.

   Discussion of the Submitter actor role was greatly clarified by
   [ID-marid-core].  Reference to this role has been written to align
   with that document's label and discussion.

   Graham Klyne, Pete Resnick and Steve Atkins provided thoughtful
   insight on the framework and details of early drafts.  Additional
   review and suggestions have been provided by Nathaniel Borenstein,
   Chris Newman, Eric Hall, Tony Finch, Ed Bradford, Cyrus Daboo, Ned
   Freed.



Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 34]

Internet-Draft               ID-Mail-Arch                     July 2004


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Crocker                 Expires January 1, 2005                [Page 35]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/