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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 draft-ietf-marf-base

Network Working Group                                    Y. Shafranovich
Internet-Draft                            SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                                 J. Levine
Expires: December 18, 2008                                    P. Hoffman
                                                Domain Assurance Council
                                                            M. Kucherawy
                                                          Sendmail, Inc.
                                                           June 16, 2008


            An Extensible Format for Email Feedback Reports
                 draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-05

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 18, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

Abstract

   This document defines an extensible format and MIME type that may be
   used by network operators to report feedback about received email to
   other parties.  This format is intended as a machine readable
   replacement for various existing report formats currently used in



Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


   Internet email.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Format of Email Feedback Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  Format of 'message/feedback-report' Content Type . . . . . . .  5
     5.1.  Required Fields  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     5.2.  Optional Fields Appearing Once . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     5.3.  Optional Fields Appearing Multiple Times . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  MIME Type Registration of message/feedback-report  . . . . . .  8
   7.  Extensibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     8.1.  Initial Values for the Header Names Registry . . . . . . . 10
     8.2.  Initial values for the "Feedback-Type" registry  . . . . . 12
     8.3.  Initial values for the "DKIM Failure Type" registry  . . . 13
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     9.1.  Inherited from RFC3462 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.2.  Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     9.3.  Envelope Sender Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   10. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Appendix A.  Appendix A - Sample Feedback Reports  . . . . . . . . 16
     A.1.  Simple Report for Email Abuse without Optional Headers . . 16
     A.2.  Opt-Out Report without Message Body  . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     A.3.  Full Report for Email Abuse with All Headers . . . . . . . 19
   Appendix B.  Status of This Document [To Be Removed Upon
                Publication]  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     B.1.  Discussion Venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     B.2.  Document Repository and Public Website . . . . . . . . . . 20
     B.3.  Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 24













Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


1.  Introduction

   As the spam problem continues to expand and potential solutions
   evolve, network operators are increasingly exchanging abuse reports
   among themselves and other parties.  However, different operators
   have defined their own formats, and thus the receivers of these
   reports are forced to write custom software to interpret each.  In
   addition, many operators use various other report formats to provide
   non-abuse-related feedback about processed email.  This memo seeks to
   define a standard extensible format and the "message/feedback-report"
   MIME type for these reports.

   This format and content type are intended to be used within the scope
   of the framework of the "multipart/report" content type defined in
   [RFC3462].  While there has been previous work in this area
   ([STRADS_BCP] and [ASRG_ABUSE]), none of them have yet been
   sucessful.  It is hoped that this document will have a better fate.

   This format is intended primarily as an Abuse Reporting Format (ARF)
   for reporting email abuse but also includes support for direct
   feedback via end user mail clients, reports of some types of virus
   activity, and some similar issues.  It also has the capacity to
   support message authentication failure reporting, in particular DKIM
   [RFC4871].

   This document only defines the format and content type to be used for
   these reports.  Determination of where these reports should be sent,
   how trust among report generators and report recipients is
   established, and reports related to more than one message are outside
   the scope of this document.  It is assumed that best practices will
   evolve over time, and will be codified in future documents.

   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].


2.  Intent

   The reports defined in this document are intended for several
   purposes:

   o  To inform ISPs about email abuse originating from or related to
      their networks

   o  To inform email service providers or other primarily outbound
      senders that there may be issues regarding their mail.  These
      issues include (but are not limited to) reports that the mail may



Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


      be considered to be "spam" by a recipient of the message.

   o  To inform email service provides about opt-out requests

   o  To advise providers that certify or otherwise make assertions
      about mail of recipient disagreement with the assertions.

   Please note that while the parent "multipart/report" content type
   defined in [RFC3462] is used for all kinds of administrative
   messages, this format is intended specifically for communications
   among providers regarding email abuse and related issues, and SHOULD
   NOT be used for other reports.


3.  Requirements

   The following requirements are necessary for feedback reports (the
   actual standard is defined in the next sections) :

   o  They must be both human and machine readable

   o  A copy of the original email message (body and headers) or the
      message headers must be enclosed in order to allow the receiver to
      properly handle the report.

   o  The machine readable section must provide ability for the report
      generators to share metadata with receivers,

   o  The format must be extensible.


4.  Format of Email Feedback Reports

   To satisfy the requirements, an email feedback report is defined as a
   MIME message with a top level MIME content type of "multipart/report"
   (as defined in [RFC3462]).  The following apply:

   a.  The "report-type" parameter of "multipart/report" type is set to
       "feedback-report"

   b.  The first MIME part of the message contains a human readable
       description of the report and MUST be included.

   c.  The second MIME part of the message is a machine-readable section
       with the content type of "message/feedback-report" (defined later
       on in this document) and MUST be included.  This section is
       intended to convey metadata about the report in question that may
       not be readily available from the included email message itself.



Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


   d.  The third MIME part of the message contains either a full copy of
       the original message with a MIME content type of "message/rfc822"
       (as defined in [RFC2046]) OR a copy of the headers from the
       original message with MIME content type of "text/rfc822-headers"
       (as defined in [RFC3462]).  This part MUST be included (unlike
       [RFC3462]).  While some operators may choose to modify or redact
       this portion for privacy or legal reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that
       the entire original email message be included without any
       modification.

   e.  Each feedback report MUST be related to only a SINGLE email
       message.  Summary and aggregate formats are outside the scope of
       this specification.

   f.  The subject line of the feedback report SHOULD be the same as the
       included email message and MAY include only the standard
       forwarding prefix used by MUAs such as "FW:".  (Many smaller
       operators using MUAs for abuse handling rely on the subject lines
       for processing.)


5.  Format of 'message/feedback-report' Content Type

   This content type provides a machine-readable section intended to let
   the report generator convey metadata to the report receiver.  The
   intent of this section is to convey information which may not be
   obvious or may not be easily extracted from the original email
   message or headers.

   The body of this content type consists of multiple "fields" formatted
   according to the ABNF of [RFC2822] header "fields".  This section
   defines the initial set of fields provided by this specification.
   Additional fields may be registered according to the procedure
   described later on in this document.  Altough these fields have a
   syntax similar to those of mail message headers, they are
   semantically distinct; hence they SHOULD NOT be repeated in the
   header area of the message containing the report.  Note that these
   fields represent information that the receiver is asserting about the
   report in question, but are not necessarily verifiable.  Report
   receivers MUST NOT assume that these assertions are always accurate.

5.1.  Required Fields

   The following header fields are REQUIRED and MUST only appear once:

   o  "Feedback-Type:" - contains the type of feedback report (as
      defined in the corresponding IANA registry).  This is intended to
      let report generators distinguish among different types of



Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


      reports.

   o  "User-Agent:" - indicates the name and version of the software
      program that generated the report.  The format of this field MUST
      follow section 14.43 of [RFC2616].  This field is for
      documentation only; there is no registry of user agent names or
      versions, and report receivers SHOULD NOT expect user agent names
      to belong to a known set.

   o  "Version:" - indicates the version of specification that the
      report generator is using to generate the report.  The version
      number in this specification is set to "0.1".

   The following header field SHOULD appear once in a DKIM failure
   report:

   o  "DKIM-Failure:" - the type of DKIM verification failure that
      occurred; MUST be included for "dkim" failure reports and MUST NOT
      be included otherwise.

5.2.  Optional Fields Appearing Once

   The following header fields are OPTIONAL and MUST NOT appear more
   than once:

   o  "Original-Envelope-Id:" - envelope ID string used in the original
      SMTP transaction (see section 2.2.1 of [RFC3464].

   o  "Original-Mail-From:" - copy of the email address used in the MAIL
      FROM portion of the original SMTP transaction.  The format of this
      field is defined in section 4.1.1.2 of [RFC2821].

   o  "Arrival-Date:" - indicates the date the original message was
      received by recipient system's MTA.  This field MUST be formatted
      as per section 3.3 of [RFC2822].

   o  "Reporting-MTA:" - indicates the name of the MTA generating this
      feedback report.  This field is defined in section 2.2.2 of
      [RFC3464], except that it is an optional field in this report.

   o  "Source-IP:" - contains an IPv4 or IPv6 address of the MTA from
      which the original message was received.  Addresses MUST be
      formatted as per section 4.1.3 of [RFC2821].

   o  "Incidents:" - contains an integer indicating the number of
      incidents this report represents.  The absence of this field
      implies the report covers a single incident.




Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


   The historic field "Received-Date:" SHOULD also be accepted and
   interpreted identically to "Arrival-Date:".

   The following header fields are OPTIONAL and MAY each appear once in
   a DKIM failure report:

   o  "DKIM-Canonicalized-Body:" - the canonicalized message body of a
      message which failed DKIM verification, base64-encoded and line-
      wrapped to remain inside [RFC2822] limits ("dkim" reports only).
      base64 encoding is defined in [RFC2045].

   o  "DKIM-Canonicalized-Header:" - the canonicalized message header
      block of a message which failed DKIM verification, base64-encoded
      and line-wrapped to remain inside [RFC2822] limits; ("dkim"
      reports only; SHOULD be present for those reports).

   o  "DKIM-Domain:" - the domain whose private key was used to sign a
      message, taken from the signature's "d=" tag ("dkim" reports
      only).

   o  "DKIM-Identity:" - the signing agent's identity, taken from the
      signature's "i=" tag ("dkim" reports only).

   o  "DKIM-Selector:" - the selector referenced by a DKIM signature,
      taken from the signature's "s=" tag ("dkim" reports only).

5.3.  Optional Fields Appearing Multiple Times

   The following set of header fields are OPTIONAL and MAY appear more
   than once:

   o  "Authentication-Results:" - indicates the result of an
      authentication check run by the report generator.  The format of
      this field is is defined in [AUTH-HEADER].  Report receivers
      should note that this field only indicates an assertion made by
      the report generator.

   o  "Original-Rcpt-To:" - copy of the email address used in the RCPT
      TO portion of the original SMTP transaction.  The format of this
      field is defined in section 4.1.1.3 of RFC 2821.

   o  "Reported-Domain:" - indicates a domain name that the report
      generator believes to be relevant to the report.  Domain format is
      defined in section 2.3.1 of [RFC1035].

   o  "Reported-URI:" - indicates a URI that the report generator
      believes to be relevant to the report.  URI format is defined in
      [RFC3986].



Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


   o  "Removal-Recipient:" - indicates the email address to be removed
      from the mailing list (MUST only be used with "opt-out").  The
      format of this field is defined in section 3.4.1 of RFC 2822.


6.  MIME Type Registration of message/feedback-report

   This section provides the media type registration application from
   [RFC4288].

   To: ietf-types@iana.org

   Subject: Registration of media type message/feedback-report

   Type name: message

   Subtype name: feedback-report

   Required parameters: none

   Optional parameters: none

   Encoding considerations:

      "7bit" encoding is sufficient and MUST be used to maintain
      readability when viewed by non-MIME mail readers.

   Security considerations:

      See the "Security Considerations" of
      draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-04.txt.

   Interoperability considerations: implementors MUST ignore any fields
   they do not support

   Published specification: draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-04.txt

   Applications which use this media type: Abuse helpdesk software for
   ISPs, mail service bureaus, mail certifiers, and similar
   organizations

   Additional information: none

   Person and email address to contact for further information: Yakov
   Shafranovich <ietf@shaftek.org>

   Intended usage: COMMON




Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


   Author: Yakov Shafranovich, John Levine, Paul Hoffman

   Change controller: IESG


7.  Extensibility

   Like many other formats and protocols, this format may need to be
   extended over time to fit the ever changing landscape of the
   Internet.  Therefore, extensibility is provided via two IANA
   registries: one for feedback types and a second for header fields.
   The feedback type registry is to be used in conjunction with the
   "Feedback-Type" field above.  The header name registry is intended
   for registration of new metadata fields to be used in the machine
   readable portion (part 2) of this format.  Please note that version
   numbers do not change with new field registrations unless a new
   specification of this format is published.  Also note that all new
   field registrations can only registered as OPTIONAL fields.  Any new
   required fields REQUIRE a new version of this specification to be
   published.

   In order to encourage extensibility and interoperability of this
   format, implementors MUST ignore any fields they do not support.


8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to register MIME type "message/feedback-report"
   using the application provided in this document and setup three
   registries: one for header field names, a second for "Feedback-Type"
   values, and a third for "DKIM-Failure" values.  This section contains
   the templates used for registration of new entries in these
   registries and their initial values.  New registrations to these
   registries MUST have approval by a Designated Expert in accordance
   with the Expert Review guidelines as described in [RFC5226] (the
   expert should be appointed by the Area Directors of the Applications
   Area).  Any new field registered is considered OPTIONAL unless a new
   version of this specification is published.

   For the header name registry, the following MUST be provided in order
   to register a new header field name:

   1.  Name of the field being registered

   2.  Short description of the field

   3.  Whether the field can appear more than once




Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


   4.  Which "Feedback-Type" types does this field apply to (or "any")

   5.  The RFC number (or Internet draft name) in which this header is
       registered

   If the header field being registered requires its own IANA registry,
   than the appropriate registry MUST be properly defined.

   For the feedback type registry, the following MUST be provided in
   order to register a new header field name:

   1.  Name of the feedback type being registered

   2.  Short description

   3.  The RFC number (or Internet draft name) in which this feedback
       type is registered

   For the DKIM failure registry, the following MUST be provided in
   order to register a new header field name:

   1.  Name of the DKIM failure type being registered

   2.  Short description

   3.  The RFC number (or Internet draft name) in which this feedback
       type is registered

8.1.  Initial Values for the Header Names Registry

   The data below are populated from this document.  The RFC number used
   for registration of these values is this document.

   Field Name: Authentication-Results
   Description: results of authentication check
   Multiple Appearances: Yes
   Related "Feedback-Type": any

   Field Name: DKIM-Canonicalized-Body
   Description: Canonicalized body, per DKIM, base64-encoded
   Multiple Appearances: No
   Related "Feedback-Type": dkim

   Field Name: DKIM-Canonicalized-Header
   Description: Canonicalized header block, per DKIM, base64-encoded
   Multiple Appearances: No
   Related "Feedback-Type": dkim




Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


   Field Name: DKIM-Domain
   Description: selector from DKIM signature ("d=" signature tag value)
   Multiple Appearances: No
   Related "Feedback-Type": dkim

   Field Name: DKIM-Failure
   Description: registered DKIM failure type
   Multiple Appearances: No
   Related "Feedback-Type": dkim

   Field Name: DKIM-Identity
   Description: DKIM signing identity ("i=" signature tag value)
   Multiple Appearances: No
   Related "Feedback-Type": dkim

   Field Name: DKIM-Selector
   Description: selector from DKIM signature ("s=" signature tag value)
   Multiple Appearances: No
   Related "Feedback-Type": dkim

   Field Name: Feedback-Type
   Description: type of feedback report
   Multiple Appearances: No
   Related "Feedback-Type": N/A

   Field Name: Original-Envelope-Id
   Description: envelope ID string used in the original SMTP transaction
   (see section 2.2.1 of [RFC3464]
   Multiple Appearances: No
   Related "Feedback-Type": any

   Field Name: Original-Mail-From
   Description: email address used in the MAIL FROM portion of the
   original SMTP transaction
   Multiple Appearances: No
   Related "Feedback-Type": any

   Field Name: Original-Rcpt-To
   Description: copy of the email address used in the RCPT TO portion of
   the original SMTP transaction
   Multiple Appearances: Yes
   Related "Feedback-Type": any

   Field Name: Arrival-Date
   Description: date the original message was received
   Multiple Appearances: No
   Related "Feedback-Type": any




Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


   Field Name: Received-Date
   Description: date the original message was received (historic;
   deprecated)
   Multiple Appearances: No
   Related "Feedback-Type": any

   Field Name: Reported-Domain
   Description: relevant domain name
   Multiple Appearances: Yes
   Related "Feedback-Type": any

   Field Name: Reported-URI
   Description: relevant URI
   Multiple Appearances: Yes
   Related "Feedback-Type": any

   Field Name: Reporting-MTA
   Description: MTA generating this report
   Multiple Appearances: No
   Related "Feedback-Type": any

   Field Name: Removal-Recipient
   Description: email address to be removed from the mailing list
   Multiple Appearances: Yes
   Related "Feedback-Type": opt-out

   Field Name: Source-IP
   Description: IPv4 or IPv6 address from which the original message was
   received
   Multiple Appearances: No
   Related "Feedback-Type": any

   Field Name: User-Agent
   Description: name and version of the program used
   Multiple Appearances: No
   Related "Feedback-Type": any

   Field Name: Version
   Description: version of specification used
   Multiple Appearances: No
   Related "Feedback-Type": any

8.2.  Initial values for the "Feedback-Type" registry

   The initial names and descriptions are provided below.  The RFC
   number used for registration of these values is this document.





Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


   o  abuse - spam or some other kind of email abuse

   o  dkim - a DKIM signature verification error

   o  fraud - indicates some kind of fraud or phishing activity.

   o  miscategorized - indicates that the content categorization applied
      in connection with a certification or reputation system was
      incorrect

   o  not-spam - indicates that a message that was tagged or categorized
      as spam (such as by an ISP) is not spam

   o  opt-out - a request to opt out from mailings from this provider.

   o  virus - report of a virus found in the originating message

   o  other - any other feedback that doesn't fit into other types.

8.3.  Initial values for the "DKIM Failure Type" registry

   The initial names and descriptions are provided below.  The RFC
   number used for registration of these values is this document.

   o  bodyhash - The body hash in the signature and the body hash
      computed by the verifier did not match.

   o  granularity - The key referenced by the signature on the message
      was not authorized for use by the sending user.

   o  other - The signature verification process failed for a reason not
      enumerated by some other registered DKIM failure type.

   o  revoked - The key referenced by the signature on the message has
      been revoked.

   o  signature - The signature on the message did not successfully
      verify against the header hash and public key.

   o  syntax - The key referenced by the signature on the message, or
      the signature itself, contained a syntax error.


9.  Security Considerations







Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


9.1.  Inherited from RFC3462

   All of the Security Considerations from [RFC3462] are inherited here.

9.2.  Interpretation

   This specification describes a report format.  This document does not
   say what a recipient of such a report must, should, or even may do
   with any report in the format described here.

9.3.  Envelope Sender Selection

   When generating an ARF message, it is necessary to construct the
   message so as to avoid amplification attacks, deliberate or
   otherwise.  Thus, per Section 2 of [RFC3464], the envelope sender
   address of the ARF message SHOULD be chosen to ensure that no
   delivery status reports will be issued in response to the ARF message
   itself, and MUST be chosen so that these reports will not generate
   mail loops.  Whenever an SMTP transaction is used to send an ARF
   message, the MAIL FROM command MUST use a NULL return address, i.e.
   "MAIL FROM:<>".


10.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank many of the members of the email
   community who provided helpful comments and suggestions for this
   document including many of the participants in ASRG, IETF and MAAWG
   activities, and all of the members of the abuse-feedback-report
   public mailing list.


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

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

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

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

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext



Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.

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

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

   [RFC3462]  Vaudreuil, G., "The Multipart/Report Content Type for the
              Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages",
              RFC 3462, January 2003.

   [RFC3464]  Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format
              for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3464,
              January 2003.

11.2.  Informative References

   [ASRG_ABUSE]
              Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) of the Internet Research
              Task Force (IRTF), "Abuse Reporting Standards Subgroup of
              the ASRG", May 2005,
              <http://asrg.sp.am/subgroups/abuse_reports.shtml>.

   [AUTH-HEADER]
              Kucherawy, M., "Message Header for Indicating Sender
              Authentication Status",
              draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-14 (work in progress).

   [RFC2045]  Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
              Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, January 2005.

   [RFC4288]  Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and
              Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005.

   [RFC4871]  Allman, E., Callas, J., Delany, M., Libbey, M., Fenton,
              J., and M. Thomas, "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)
              Signatures", RFC 4871, May 2007.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.




Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


   [STRADS_BCP]
              Crissman, G., "Proposed Spam Reporting BCP Document",
              May 2005, <http://www.tmisnet.com/~strads/spam/bcp.html>.


Appendix A.  Appendix A - Sample Feedback Reports

A.1.  Simple Report for Email Abuse without Optional Headers











































Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


   From: <abusedesk@example.com>
   Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2005 17:40:36 EDT
   Subject: FW: Earn money
   To: <abuse@example.net>
   MIME-Version: 1.0
   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
   10.67.41.167 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: abuse
   User-Agent: SomeGenerator/1.0
   Version: 0.1

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

   From: <somespammer@example.net>
   Received: from mailserver.example.net
        (mailserver.example.net [10.67.41.167])
        by example.com with ESMTP id M63d4137594e46;
        Thu, 08 Mar 2005 14:00:00 -0400
   To: <Undisclosed Recipients>
   Subject: Earn money
   MIME-Version: 1.0
   Content-type: text/plain
   Message-ID: 8787KJKJ3K4J3K4J3K4J3.mail@example.net
   Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:31:03 -0500

   Spam Spam Spam
   Spam Spam Spam
   Spam Spam Spam
   Spam Spam Spam
   --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary--







Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


A.2.  Opt-Out Report without Message Body


   From: <abusedesk@example.com>
   Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2005 17:40:36 EDT
   Subject: FW: Earn money
   To: <abuse@example.net>
   MIME-Version: 1.0
   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 opt-out report for an email message received from IP
   10.67.41.167 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: opt-out
   User-Agent: SomeGenerator/1.0
   Version: 0.1
   Removal-Recipient: user@example.com

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

   From: <somespammer@example.net>
   Received: from mailserver.example.net
        (mailserver.example.net [10.67.41.167])
        by example.com with ESMTP id M63d4137594e46;
        Thu, 08 Mar 2005 14:00:00 -0400
   To: <Undisclosed Recipients>
   Subject: Earn money
   MIME-Version: 1.0
   Content-type: text/plain
   Message-ID: 8787KJKJ3K4J3K4J3K4J3.mail@example.net
   Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:31:03 -0500
   --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary--








Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


A.3.  Full Report for Email Abuse with All Headers


   From: <abusedesk@example.com>
   Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2005 17:40:36 EDT
   Subject: FW: Earn money
   To: <abuse@example.net>
   MIME-Version: 1.0
   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
   10.67.41.167 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: abuse
   User-Agent: SomeGenerator/1.0
   Version: 0.1
   Original-Mail-From: <somespammer@example.net>
   Original-Rcpt-To: <user@example.com>
   Received-Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2005 14:00:00 EDT
   Source-IP: 10.67.41.167
   Authentication-Results: mail.example.com
                  smtp.mail=somespammer@example.com;
                  spf=fail
   Reported-Domain: example.net
   Reported-Uri: http://example.net/earn_money.html
   Reported-Uri: mailto:user@example.com
   Removal-Recipient: user@example.com

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

   From: <somespammer@example.net>
   Received: from mailserver.example.net (mailserver.example.net
        [10.67.41.167]) by example.com with ESMTP id M63d4137594e46;
        Thu, 08 Mar 2005 14:00:00 -0400
   To: <Undisclosed Recipients>
   Subject: Earn money
   MIME-Version: 1.0



Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


   Content-type: text/plain
   Message-ID: 8787KJKJ3K4J3K4J3K4J3.mail@example.net
   Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:31:03 -0500

   Spam Spam Spam
   Spam Spam Spam
   Spam Spam Spam
   Spam Spam Spam
   --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary--


Appendix B.  Status of This Document [To Be Removed Upon Publication]

B.1.  Discussion Venue

   Discussion about this document should be directed to the ABUSE-
   FEEDBACK-REPORT mailing list
   <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/abuse-feedback-report> which is
   also reachable via <mailto:abuse-feedback-report@mipassoc.org>.  Of
   course, comments directly to the authors are always welcome (you can
   send them via email to <ietf@shaftek.org> and
   <drafts@domain-assurance.org>).

B.2.  Document Repository and Public Website

   Copies of this and earlier versions including multiple formats can be
   found at <http://www.shaftek.org/publications/drafts/abuse-report/>.
   A public website regarding this draft and related efforts is located
   at <http://mipassoc.org/arf/>.

B.3.  Document History

   Changes from draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-01-pre1 to
   draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-01:

   o  Added an "Outstanding Issues" section.

   o  Minor spelling mistakes and clarifications.

   o  Added links to previous work and more examples.

   o  Added three new types: "fraud" for phishing, "opt-out-list" for a
      single list opt out, and "other" as a catch-all.

   Changes from draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-00 to
   draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-01-pre1:





Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


   o  Changed the introduction section to clarify specific points that
      are out of scope for this document

   o  Added pointers to a public mailing list for discussion and public
      web page

   o  Clarified the intent section and added some extra points to it

   o  Added a reference to RFC 2119 and changed the document to comply

   o  Made it clear that the requirements section) is not the one
      defining the standard

   o  Clarified the main format section to make all three parts
      mandatory

   o  Changed section 4f regarding subject lines to mandate that subject
      lines should be left intact.  Removed the convention for subject
      lines that was defined in the previous version

   o  Added text to the the machine readable section clarifying its
      intent.  Also added RFC 2119 references, reorganized fields,
      indicated whether specific header fields can appear more than once
      and provided references as to how they should be formatted.

   o  Removed "Original-Message-ID", "Authenticated-Domain:" and
      "Authenticated-Domain-Method" from the draft including related
      IANA registries.  Added "Version", "User-Agent", Original-Mail-
      From", "Original-Rcpt-To", "Reported-Uri", "Reported-Domain" and
      "Authentication-Results".

   o  Example has been updated to reflect new headers.

   o  Added a new section on extensibility and changed the IANA section
      to reflect that.

   Changes from draft-shafranovich-abuse-report-00 to
   draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-00:

   o  Name of the format and report changed to 'feedback-report'

   o  Minor spelling corrections

   o  Added authentication headers and registry

   o  Added feedback-type header and registry.

   Changes from draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-00 to



Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


   draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-01:

   o  None significant (just a freshening)

   Changes from draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-01 to
   draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-02:

   o  Much editorial cleanup

   o  Added John Levine and Paul Hoffman as co-authors

   o  Made the line lengths in Appendix A appropriate for RFCs

   o  Switched to symbolic names for references

   o  Reduced duplication of reference calls

   o  Removed text that specified the type of RFC and approval type that
      is expected

   o  Removed the requirement for an RFC to update the IANA registries;
      both are now designated expert approval only

   o  Added two new categories to the initial values for the "Feedback-
      Type" registry: miscategorized and not-spam

   Changes from draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-02 to
   draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-03:

   o  Added a bit to the Security Considerations section

   o  Updated obsolete references

   o  Resolved all items in the outstanding issues list and therefore
      removed it

   Changes from draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-03 to
   draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-04:

   o  Added Murray Kucherawy as co-author

   o  Added support for DKIM reporting

   o  Cleaned up XML a lot

   Changes from draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-04 to
   draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-05:




Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


   o  Add "Incidents" header

   o  RFC3464 replaces RFC1894

   o  RFC5226 replaces RFC2434

   Still to be done:

   o  Add DKIM examples

   o  Add ABNF specifications


Authors' Addresses

   Yakov Shafranovich
   SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc.

   Email: ietf@shaftek.org
   URI:   http://www.shaftek.org


   John Levine
   Domain Assurance Council
   PO Box 727
   Trumansburg, NY  14886

   Phone: +1 831 480 2300
   Email: john.levine@domain-assurance.org
   URI:   http://www.domain-assurance.org


   Paul Hoffman
   Domain Assurance Council

   Email: paul.hoffman@domain-assurance.org
   URI:   http://www.domain-assurance.org


   Murray S. Kucherawy
   Sendmail, Inc.

   Email: msk+ietf@sendmail.com








Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft         Format for Feedback Reports             June 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   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.

   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, THE IETF TRUST 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.


Intellectual Property

   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.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Shafranovich, et al.    Expires December 18, 2008              [Page 24]


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