[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-li-marf-not-spam-feedback) 00 01 02 03 RFC 6430

marf                                                               K. Li
Internet-Draft                                                  B. Leiba
Intended status: Standards Track                     Huawei Technologies
Expires: January 3, 2012                                    July 2, 2011


              Email Feedback Report Type Value : not-spam
                  draft-ietf-marf-not-spam-feedback-00

Abstract

   This document defines a new Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) feedback
   report type value: "not-spam".  It can be used to report a message
   that was mistakenly marked as spam.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 3, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.





Li & Leiba               Expires January 3, 2012                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        Email Feedback Type: not-spam            July 2011


Table of Contents

   1.    Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   1.1.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

   2.    Feedback Report Type: Not-Spam  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

   3.    Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

   4.    Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

   5.    IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

   6.    Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

   7.    References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

         Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7






























Li & Leiba               Expires January 3, 2012                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        Email Feedback Type: not-spam            July 2011


1.  Introduction

   In RFC 5965 [RFC5965], an Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) is defined for
   reporting email abuse.  Currently two feedback report types are
   defined that are related to the spam problem, and that can be used to
   report abusive or fraudulent email messages:
   o  abuse: indicates unsolicited email or some other kind of email
      abuse.
   o  fraud: indicates some kind of fraud or phishing activity.

   This specification defines a new feedback report type: "not-spam".
   It can be used to report a message that was mistakenly marked as
   spam.

1.1.  Discussion

   In some cases, the mail client receives an email message that was
   tagged as spam, either by the mail system or accidentally by the
   user, but the end user finds that actually it is not spam.  The mail
   client accepts the end user's report instruction and retrieves
   information related to the message, and reports this email as not-
   spam to the mail operator.  When the mail operator receives the
   report, it can determine what action is appropriate for the
   particular message and user.  (The requirement for a not-spam report
   type is from the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Spam Report Requirement
   Document [OMA-SpamRep-RD].)

   For example, in response to a "not-spam" report the mail system can
   remove the spam tag or change the category, possibly preventing
   future similar mail for this user from being marked as spam.  The
   report can be used to adjust the training of an automated classifier.
   After processing the report, the mail operator can send a
   notification to the mail client about the processing result.

   In most cases, "not-spam" reports will probably not be taken on their
   own, but will be considered along with other information, analysis of
   the message, etc.  Because different users have different needs and
   different views of what constitutes spam, reports from one user might
   or might not be applicable to others.  And because users might
   sometimes press a "report not spam" button accidentally, immediate
   strong action, such as marking all similar messages as "good" based
   on a single report, is probably not the right approach.  Recipients
   of "not-spam" reports need to consider what's right in their
   environments.

   There are anti-spam systems that use "not spam" feedback today.  All
   of them take the reports and mix them with other spam reports and
   other data, using their own algorithms, to determine appropriate



Li & Leiba               Expires January 3, 2012                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        Email Feedback Type: not-spam            July 2011


   action.  In no case do the existing systems use a "not spam" report
   as an immediate, automatic override.

1.2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].  These
   terms take their normative values only when presented in UPPER CASE.


2.  Feedback Report Type: Not-Spam

   This document only defines a new feedback report type, "not-spam",
   extending the Email Feedback Reports specification [RFC5965].

   In the first MIME part of the feedback report message, the end user
   or the mail client MAY add information to indicate why the message is
   not spam -- for example, because the originator or its domain is well
   known.


3.  Example

   In the example, Joe, a pharmaceuticals sales representative, has
   received a message about discount pharmaceuticals.  Because that is a
   frequent subject of spam email, the message has been marked as spam
   -- incorrectly, in this case.  Joe has reported it as "not-spam", and
   this is an example of the report.

   Note that the message is DKIM-signed [I-D.ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis], a
   good security practice as suggested in RFC 5965 section 8.2
   [RFC5965].


      DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=abuse; d=example.com;
        c=simple/simple; q=dns/txt; i=abusedesk@example.com;
        h=From:Date:Subject:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
        bh=iF4dMNYs/KepE0HuwfukJCDyjkduUzZFiaHqO9DMIPU=;
        b=e+BF8DCHFGqCp7/pExleNz7pVaLEoT+uWj/8H9DoZpxFI1vNnCTDu14w5v
          ze4mqJkldudVI0JspsYHTYeomhPklCV4F95GfwpM5W+ziUOv7AySTfygPW
          EerczqZwAK88//oaYCFXq3XV9T/z+zlLp3rrirKGmCMCPPcbdSGv/Eg=
      From: <abusedesk@example.com>
      Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2005 17:40:36 EDT
      Subject: FW: Discount on pharmaceuticals
      To: <abuse@example.net>
      Message-ID: <20030712040037.46341.5F8J@example.com>
      MIME-Version: 1.0



Li & Leiba               Expires January 3, 2012                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        Email Feedback Type: not-spam            July 2011


      Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=feedback-report;
           boundary="part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary"

      --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
      Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

      This is an email abuse report for an email message received
      from IP 192.0.2.1 on Thu, 8 Mar 2005 14:00:00 EDT.
      For more information about this format please see
      http://www.mipassoc.org/arf/.

      --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary
      Content-Type: message/feedback-report

      Feedback-Type: not-spam
      User-Agent: SomeGenerator/1.0
      Version: 1

      --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary
      Content-Type: message/rfc822
      Content-Disposition: inline

      Received: from mailserver.example.net
           (mailserver.example.net [192.0.2.1])
           by example.com with ESMTP id M63d4137594e46;
           Thu, 08 Mar 2005 14:00:00 -0400
      From: <someone@example.net>
      To: <Undisclosed Recipients>
      Subject: Discount on pharmaceuticals
      MIME-Version: 1.0
      Content-type: text/plain
      Message-ID: 8787KJKJ3K4J3K4J3K4J3.mail@example.net
      Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:31:03 -0500

      Hi, Joe.  I got a lead on a source for discounts on
      pharmaceuticals, and I thought you might be interested.
      [...etc...]
      --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary--

              Example 1: Not-spam report



4.  Security Considerations

   All of the Security Considerations from the Email Feedback Reports
   specification [RFC5965] are inherited here.



Li & Leiba               Expires January 3, 2012                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        Email Feedback Type: not-spam            July 2011


   Not-spam reports could possibly be used in an attack on a filtering
   system, reporting true spam as "not-spam".  Even in absence of
   malice, some not-spam reports might be made in error, or will only
   apply to the user sending the report.  Operators need to be careful
   in trusting such reports, beyond their applicability to the specific
   user in question.


5.  IANA Considerations

   Registration is requested for the newly defined feedback type name:
   "not-spam", according to the instructions in section 7.3 of the base
   specification [RFC5965].

   Please add the following to the "Feedback Report Type Values"
   registry:
   Feedback Type Name:  not-spam
   Description:  Indicates that a message is not spam.  This may be used
       to correct a message that was incorrectly tagged or categorized
       as spam.
   Published in:  this document
   Status:  current


6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like thank Murray S. Kucherawy and Bert
   Greevenbosch for their discussion and review, and J.D. Falk for
   suggesting some explanatory text.


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5965]  Shafranovich, Y., Levine, J., and M. Kucherawy, "An
              Extensible Format for Email Feedback Reports", RFC 5965,
              August 2010.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis]
              Crocker, D., Hansen, T., and M. Kucherawy, "DomainKeys
              Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures",
              draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-13 (work in progress),



Li & Leiba               Expires January 3, 2012                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        Email Feedback Type: not-spam            July 2011


              June 2011.

   [OMA-SpamRep-RD]
              Open Mobile Alliance, "Mobile Spam Reporting
              Requirements", OMA-RD-SpamRep-V1_0 20101123-C,
              November 2010.


Authors' Addresses

   Kepeng Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen, Guangdong  518129
   P. R. China

   Phone: +86-755-28974289
   Email: likepeng@huawei.com


   Barry Leiba
   Huawei Technologies

   Phone: +1 646 827 0648
   Email: barryleiba@computer.org
   URI:   http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/

























Li & Leiba               Expires January 3, 2012                [Page 7]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/