[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 3885

Internet Draft                                               E. Allman
draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-00.txt                        Sendmail, Inc.
Valid for six months                                         T. Hansen
Updates: RFC 1891                                    AT&T Laboratories
                                                     December 14, 2000




                        SMTP Service Extension
                         for Message Tracking

                  <draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-00.txt>

Status of This Memo

     This  document  is  an  Internet-Draft and is in full conformance
with all provisions of Section 10  of  RFC2026.   Internet-Drafts  are
working  documents  of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
areas, and its working groups.  Note that other groups may  also  dis-
tribute 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 document is a submission by the MSGTRK Working Group of  the
Internet  Engineering Task Force (IETF).  Comments should be submitted
to the msgtrk@imc.org mailing list.  An archive of  the  mailing  list
may be found at

    http://www.ietf.org/archive/msgtrk


     Distribution of this memo is unlimited.


1.  Abstract

        This  memo  defines an extension to the SMTP service whereby a
   client may mark a message for future tracking.

Internet Draft     Message Tracking ESMTP Extension  December 14, 2000


2.  Other Documents and Conformance

        The model used for Message Tracking is  described  in  [DRAFT-
   MTRK-MODEL].

        Doing  a Message Tracking query is intended as a "last resort"
   mechanism.  Normally, Delivery Status  Notifications  (DSNs)  [RFC-
   DSN-SMTP]  and  Message  Disposition Notifications (MDNs) [RFC-MDN]
   would provide the primary delivery status.  Only if the message  is
   not  received,  or there is no response from either of these mecha-
   nisms should a Message Tracking query be issued.

        The definition of the base64 token is  imported  from  section
   6.8 of [RFC-MIME].

        Syntax notation in this document conforms to [RFC-ABNF].

        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 RFC 2119
   [RFC-KEYWORDS].


3.  SMTP Extension Overview

        The Message Tracking SMTP service extension uses the SMTP ser-
   vice  extension  mechanism described in [RFC-ESMTP].  The following
   service extension is hereby defined:

    (1)   The name of the SMTP service extension  is  "Message  Track-
          ing".

    (2)   The  EHLO  keyword  value  associated with this extension is
          "MTRK".

    (3)   No parameters are allowed  with  this  EHLO  keyword  value.
          Future documents may extend this specification by specifying
          options.

    (4)   One optional parameter using the keyword "MTRK" is added  to
          the  MAIL  FROM  command.   In addition, the ENVID and ORCPT
          parameters (as defined in RFC  1891  sections  5.4  and  5.2
          respectively)   MUST   be   supported,  with  extensions  as
          described below.

    (5)   The maximum length of a MAIL FROM command line is  increased
          by  40  characters by the possible addition of the MTRK key-
          word and value.  Note that a further extension of 614  char-
          acters  for  the  ORCPT  and ENVID parameters is required by
          RFC-DSN-EXT].

    (6)   No SMTP verbs are defined by this extension.






Allman & Hansen                                               [Page 2]


Internet Draft     Message Tracking ESMTP Extension  December 14, 2000


4.  The Extended MAIL FROM Command

        The extended MAIL FROM command is issued  by  an  SMTP  client
   when  it  wishes  to  inform  an  SMTP server that message tracking
   information should be retained for future querying.   The  extended
   MAIL  FROM command is identical to the MAIL FROM command as defined
   in [RFC-SMTP], except that MTRK, ORCPT, and ENVID parameters appear
   after the address.

   4.1.  The MTRK parameter to the ESMTP MAIL command

           Any  sender  wishing to track a message must first tag that
      message as trackable by creating two values A and B:

          A = some-large-random-number
          B = SHA1(A)

      The large random number A  is  calculated  on  a  host-dependent
      basis as described in [DRAFT-MTRK-MODEL].  See also [RFC-RANDOM]
      for a discussion of choosing good random numbers.   This  random
      number  MUST be at least 128 bits but MUST NOT be more than 1024
      bits.

           The 128-bit hash B of A is then computed  using  the  SHA-1
      algorithm as described in [NIST-SHA1].

           The  sender  then  base64  encodes  value B and passes that
      value as the mtrk-certifier on the MAIL FROM command:

          mtrk-parameter  = "MTRK=" mtrk-certifier [ ":" mtrk-timeout ]
          mtrk-certifier  = base64  ; authenticator
          mtrk-timeout    = 1*9digit; seconds until timeout


           A is stored in the originator's tracking database to  vali-
      date future tracking requests as described in [DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP].
      B is stored in tracking tracking databases of compliant MTAs and
      used to authenticate future tracking requests.

           The mtrk-timeout field indicates the number of seconds that
      the client requests that this tracking information  be  retained
      on intermediate servers, as measured from the initial receipt of
      the message at that server.  Servers MAY ignore this value if it
      violates  local  policy.   In  particular,  servers MAY silently
      enforce an upper limit to how long  they  will  retain  tracking
      data; this limit MUST be at least one day.

           If  no  mtrk-timeout  field  is  specified  then the server
      should use a local default.  This default SHOULD  be  8-10  days
      and  MUST be at least one day.  Notwithstanding this clause, the
      information MUST NOT be expired while the message remains in the
      queue  for  this  server:  that is, an MTQP server MUST NOT deny
      knowledge of a message while that same message sits in  the  MTA
      queue.




Allman & Hansen                                               [Page 3]


Internet Draft     Message Tracking ESMTP Extension  December 14, 2000


           If the message is relayed to another compliant SMTP server,
      the MTA acting as the client SHOULD pass an  mtrk-timeout  field
      equal  to  the  remaining life of that message tracking informa-
      tion.  Specifically, the tracking timeout is decremented by  the
      number  of seconds the message has lingered at this MTA and then
      passed to the next MTA.  If the decremented tracking timeout  is
      less  than  or equal to zero, the entire MTRK parameter MUST NOT
      be passed to the next MTA; essentially, the entire tracking path
      is considered to be lost at that point.

           See  [RFC-DELIVERYBY] section 4 for an explanation of why a
      timeout is used instead of an absolute time.

   4.2.  Use of ENVID

           To function properly, Message Tracking requires  that  each
      message  have  a  unique  identifier that is never reused by any
      other message.  For that  purpose,  if  the  MTRK  parameter  is
      given,  an  ENVID  parameter MUST be included, and the syntax of
      ENVID from RFC 1891 section 5.4 is extended as follows:

          envid-parameter = "ENVID=" unique-envid
          unique-envid    = xtext "@" fqhn
          fqhn            = xtext

      Any retransmissions of this message MUST assign a new ENVID.  In
      this  context, "retransmission" includes forwarding or resending
      a message.

   4.3.  Forwarding Tracking Certifiers

           MTAs SHOULD forward unexpired tracking certifiers  to  com-
      pliant mailers as the mail is transferred during regular hop-to-
      hop transfers.  If the "downstream" MTA is  not  MTRK-compliant,
      then the MTRK= parameter MUST be deleted.  If the downstream MTA
      is DSN-compliant, then the ENVID and ORCPT parameters  MUST  NOT
      be deleted.

           If  aliasing,  forwarding, or other redirection of messages
      to a single recipient occurs, then the MTA SHOULD treat this  as
      an  ordinary  hop-to-hop transfer and forward the MTRK=, ENVID=,
      and ORCPT= values; these values MUST NOT be modified.

           MTAs MUST NOT copy MTRK certifiers when relaying a  message
      to multiple recipients.  An MTA MAY designate one recipient in a
      multi-recipient alias as the "primary" recipient to which track-
      ing  requests  shall  be  forwarded;  other  addresses SHALL NOT
      receive tracking certifiers.  MTAs MUST NOT forward MTRK  certi-
      fiers when doing mailing list expansion.


5.  Security Issues






Allman & Hansen                                               [Page 4]


Internet Draft     Message Tracking ESMTP Extension  December 14, 2000


   5.1.  Denial of service

           An attacker could attempt to flood the database of a server
      by submitting large numbers of small, tracked messages.  In this
      case,  a  site  may  elect to lower its maximum retention period
      retroactively.

   5.2.  Confidentiality

           The mtrk-authenticator value (``A'') must be hard  to  pre-
      dict and not reused.

           The  originating client must take reasonable precautions to
      protect the secret.  For example, if the secret is stored  in  a
      message store (e.g., a "Sent" folder), the client must make sure
      the secret isn't accessible  by  attackers,  particularly  on  a
      shared store.

           MTAs  SHOULD  take precautions to make certain that message
      tracking cannot be used to explore internal topologies  of  net-
      works.

6.  References

   [DRAFT-MTRK-MODEL]
        T.   Hansen,  ``Message  Tracking  Model  and  Requirements.''
        draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-03.txt.  November 2000.

   [DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP]
        T. Hansen, ``Message Tracking Query  Protocol.''   draft-ietf-
        msgtrk-mtqp-01.txt.  November 2000.

   [RFC-ABNF]
        Crocker,  D., Editor, and P. Overell, ``Augmented BNF for Syn-
        tax Specifications: ABNF'', RFC 2234, November 1997.

   [RFC-DELIVERYBY]
        D. Newman, ``Deliver By SMTP Service Extension.''   RFC  2852.
        June 2000.

   [RFC-DSN-REPT]
        G.  Vaudreuil,  ``The  Multipart/Report  Content  Type for the
        Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages.''  RFC 1892.
        January 1996.

   [RFC-DSN-SMTP]
        K. Moore, ``SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifi-
        cations.''  RFC 1891.  January 1996.

   [RFC-DSN-STAT]
        K. Moore and G. Vaudreuil, ``An Extensible Message Format  for
        Delivery Status Notifications.''  RFC 1894.  January 1996.

   [RFC-EMSSC]
        G.  Vaudreuil,  ``Enhanced  Mail  System  Status Codes.''  RFC
        1893.  January 1996.


Allman & Hansen                                               [Page 5]


Internet Draft     Message Tracking ESMTP Extension  December 14, 2000


   [RFC-ESMTP]
        Rose, M., Stefferud, E.,  Crocker,  D.,  Klensin,  J.  and  N.
        Freed, ``SMTP Service Extensions.''  STD 10, RFC 1869.  Novem-
        ber 1995.

   [RFC-KEYWORDS]
        S. Bradner, ``Key words for use in RFCs to  Indicate  Require-
        ment Levels.''  RFC 2119.  March 1997.

   [RFC-MDN]
        R. Fajman, ``An Extensible Message Format for Message Disposi-
        tion Notifications.''  RFC 2298.  March 1998.

   [RFC-MIME]
        N. Freed  and  N.  Borenstein,  ``Multipurpose  Internet  Mail
        Extensions  (MIME)  Part  One: Format of Internet Message Bod-
        ies.''  RFC 2045.  November 1996.

   [RFC-MSGFMT]
        D. Crocker, ``Standard for the Format of  ARPA  Internet  Text
        Messages.''  RFC 822.  August 1982.

   [RFC-RANDOM]

   [RFC-RELATED]
        E. Levinson, ``The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type.''  RFC
        2387.  August 1998.

   [NIST-SHA1]
        NIST FIPS  PUB  180-1,  ``Secure  Hash  Standard.''   National
        Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Com-
        merce.  May 1994.  DRAFT.

   [RFC-SMTP]
        J. Postel,  ``Simple  Mail  Transport  Protocol.''   RFC  821.
        August 1982.

7.  Authors' Addresses

       Eric Allman
       Sendmail, Inc.
       6603 Shellmound
       Emeryville, CA  94608
       U.S.A.

       E-Mail: eric@Sendmail.COM
       Phone: +1 510 594 5501
       Fax: +1 510 594 5411










Allman & Hansen                                               [Page 6]


Internet Draft     Message Tracking ESMTP Extension  December 14, 2000


       Tony Hansen
       AT&T Laboratories
       Lincroft, NJ 07738
       U.S.A.

       Phone: +1 732 576 3207
       E-Mail: tony@att.com



















































Allman & Hansen                                               [Page 7]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/