draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-04.txt   draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-05.txt 
Sieve Working Group B. Leiba Sieve Working Group B. Leiba
Internet-Draft IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Internet-Draft IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Intended status: Standards Track M. Haardt Intended status: Standards Track M. Haardt
Expires: January 9, 2008 freenet AG Expires: April 7, 2008 freenet AG
July 8, 2007 October 5, 2007
Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-04 draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-05
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 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 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. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2008. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 7, 2008.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a profile of the Sieve extension for This document describes a profile of the Sieve extension for
notifications, to allow notifications to be sent by electronic mail. notifications, to allow notifications to be sent by electronic mail.
skipping to change at page 2, line 32 skipping to change at page 2, line 32
2.6. Notify tag ":message" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.6. Notify tag ":message" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.7. Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.7. Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Registration of notification mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. New registry for Auto-Submitted header field keywords . . . 11
6.3. Initial registration of Auto-Submitted header field
keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Non-Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2. Non-Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 14 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
1.1. Overview 1.1. Overview
The [Notify] extension to the [Sieve] mail filtering language is a The [Notify] extension to the [Sieve] mail filtering language is a
framework for providing notifications by employing URIs to specify framework for providing notifications by employing URIs to specify
the notification mechanism. This document defines how [mailto] URIs the notification mechanism. This document defines how [mailto] URIs
are used to generate notifications by e-mail. are used to generate notifications by e-mail.
skipping to change at page 5, line 11 skipping to change at page 5, line 11
determining the subject (as described below). Its value SHOULD NOT determining the subject (as described below). Its value SHOULD NOT
normally be truncated, though it may be sensible to truncate an normally be truncated, though it may be sensible to truncate an
excessively long value. excessively long value.
2.7. Other Definitions 2.7. Other Definitions
Because the receipt of an email message is generating another email Because the receipt of an email message is generating another email
message, implementations MUST take steps to avoid mail loops. The message, implementations MUST take steps to avoid mail loops. The
notification message contains the "Received:" fields from the notification message contains the "Received:" fields from the
triggering message to allow loop detection as described in [RFC2821], triggering message to allow loop detection as described in [RFC2821],
section 6.2. The implementation MUST allow messages with empty section 6.2. The REQUIRED inclusion of an "Auto-Submitted:" field,
envelope senders to trigger notifications. as described in the message composition guidelines, will also help in
loop detection and avoidance.
Implementations MUST NOT trigger notifications for messages
containing "Auto-Submitted:" header fields.
Implementations MUST allow messages with empty envelope senders to
trigger notifications.
Because this notification method uses a store-and-forward system for Because this notification method uses a store-and-forward system for
delivery of the notification message, the Sieve processor should not delivery of the notification message, the Sieve processor should not
have a need to retry notifications. Therefore, implementations of have a need to retry notifications. Therefore, implementations of
this method SHOULD use normal mechanisms for submitting SMTP messages this method SHOULD use normal mechanisms for submitting SMTP messages
and for retrying the initial submission. Once the notification and for retrying the initial submission. Once the notification
message is submitted, implementations MUST NOT resubmit it, as this message is submitted, implementations MUST NOT resubmit it, as this
is likely to result in multiple notifications, and increases the is likely to result in multiple notifications, and increases the
danger of message loops. danger of message loops.
The overall notification message is composed using the following The overall notification message is composed using the following
guidelines (see [RFC2822] for references to message header fields): guidelines (see [RFC2822] for references to message header fields):
o The header field "Auto-Submitted: sieve-notify" MUST be included
in the notification message (see [RFC3834]). This is to reduce
the likelihood of message loops, by tagging this as an
automatically generated message. Among other results, it will
cause the notification message not to generate further
notifications.
o Unless overridden by ":from", the "From:" header field and the o Unless overridden by ":from", the "From:" header field and the
envelope sender of the notification message are set either to the envelope sender of the notification message are set either to the
envelope "to" field from the triggering message, as used by Sieve, envelope "to" field from the triggering message, as used by Sieve,
or to a fixed address (so it "comes from the notification or to a fixed address (so it "comes from the notification
system"), at the discretion of the implementation. This may not system"), at the discretion of the implementation. This may not
be overridden by a "from" URI header, and any such URI header will be overridden by a "from" URI header, and any such URI header will
be ignored. be ignored.
o The "To:" header field and the envelope recipient(s) of the o The "To:" header field and the envelope recipient(s) of the
notification message are set to the address(es) specified in the notification message are set to the address(es) specified in the
skipping to change at page 7, line 46 skipping to change at page 7, line 46
} }
Notification message: Notification message:
Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org
for <recipient@example.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500 for <recipient@example.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500
Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com
for <knitting@example.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800 for <knitting@example.com>; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:55 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:55 -0500
Message-ID: <A2299BB.FF7788@example.org> Message-ID: <A2299BB.FF7788@example.org>
Auto-Submitted: sieve-notify
From: <recipient@example.org> From: <recipient@example.org>
To: <0123456789@sms.example.net> To: <0123456789@sms.example.net>
Subject: From Knitting list: A new sweater Subject: From Knitting list: A new sweater
Note that: Note that:
o Fields such as "Message-ID:" and "Date:" were generated afresh for o Fields such as "Message-ID:" and "Date:" were generated afresh for
the notification message, and do not relate to the triggering the notification message, and do not relate to the triggering
message. message.
o Additional "Received:" fields will be added to the notification o Additional "Received:" fields will be added to the notification
message in transit; the ones shown were copied from the triggering message in transit; the ones shown were copied from the triggering
message. message.
o If this message should appear at the mail.example.org server o If this message should appear at the mail.example.org server
again, the server can use the presence of a "mail.example.org" again, the server can use the presence of a "mail.example.org"
received line to avoid sending another notification. received line to recognize that. The Auto-Submitted header field
is also present to tell the server to avoid sending another
notification.
4. Internationalization Considerations 4. Internationalization Considerations
This specification introduces no specific internationalization issues This specification introduces no specific internationalization issues
that are not already addressed in [Sieve] and in [Notify]. that are not already addressed in [Sieve] and in [Notify].
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
Sending a notification is comparable with forwarding mail to the Sending a notification is comparable with forwarding mail to the
notification recipient. Care must be taken when forwarding mail notification recipient. Care must be taken when forwarding mail
skipping to change at page 11, line 7 skipping to change at page 11, line 7
The automated sending of email messages exposes the system to mail The automated sending of email messages exposes the system to mail
loops, which can cause operational problems. Implementations of this loops, which can cause operational problems. Implementations of this
specification MUST protect themselves against mail loops (see specification MUST protect themselves against mail loops (see
Section 2.7). Section 2.7).
Additional security considerations are discussed in [Sieve] and in Additional security considerations are discussed in [Sieve] and in
[Notify]. [Notify].
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
6.1. Registration of notification mechanism
The following template specifies the IANA registration of the Sieve The following template specifies the IANA registration of the Sieve
notification mechanism specified in this document: notification mechanism specified in this document:
To: iana@iana.org To: iana@iana.org
Subject: Registration of new Sieve notification mechanism Subject: Registration of new Sieve notification mechanism
Mechanism name: mailto Mechanism name: mailto
Mechanism URI: RFC2368 Mechanism URI: RFC2368
Mechanism-specific tags: none Mechanism-specific tags: none
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: this RFC Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: this RFC
Person and email address to contact for further information: Person and email address to contact for further information:
Michael Haardt <michael.haardt@freenet-ag.de> Michael Haardt <michael.haardt@freenet.ag>
This information should be added to the list of sieve notification This information should be added to the list of sieve notification
mechanisms given on mechanisms given on
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-notification. http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-notification.
6.2. New registry for Auto-Submitted header field keywords
Because [RFC3834] does not define a registry for new keywords used in
the Auto-Submitted header field, we define one here, to be created as
http://www.iana.org/assignments/auto-submitted-keywords. This
defines the template to be used to register new keywords.
To: iana@iana.org
Subject: Registration of new auto-submitted header field keyword
Keyword value: [the text value of the field]
Description: [a brief explanation of the purpose of this value]
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: [identifies
the specification that defines the value being registered]
Contact: [name and email address to contact for further information]
6.3. Initial registration of Auto-Submitted header field keywords
The following are the initial keywords to be registered for the Auto-
Submitted header field, to be entered in
http://www.iana.org/assignments/auto-submitted-keywords.
Keyword value: no
Description: Indicates that a message was NOT automatically
generated, but was created by a human. It is the equivalent to the
absence of an Auto-Submitted header altogether.
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834
Contact: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Keyword value: auto-generated
Description: Indicates that a message was generated by an automatic
process, and is not a direct response to another message.
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834
Contact: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Keyword value: auto-replied
Description: Indicates that a message was automatically generated as
a direct response to another message.
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834
Contact: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Keyword value: sieve-notify
Description: Indicates that a message was generated by a Sieve
notification system.
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: this RFC
Contact: Michael Haardt <michael.haardt@freenet.ag>
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[Kwds] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [Kwds] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[Notify] Melnikov, A., Ed., Leiba, B., Ed., Segmuller, W., and T. [Notify] Melnikov, A., Ed., Leiba, B., Ed., Segmuller, W., and T.
Martin, "Sieve Extension: Notifications", work in Martin, "Sieve Extension: Notifications", work in
progress, draft-ietf-sieve-notify, December 2005. progress, draft-ietf-sieve-notify, December 2005.
[RFC2822] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, [RFC2822] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822,
April 2001. April 2001.
[RFC3834] Moore, K., "Recommendations for Automatic Responses to
Electronic Mail", RFC 3834, August 2004.
[Sieve] Guenther, P., Ed. and T. Showalter, Ed., "Sieve: An Email [Sieve] Guenther, P., Ed. and T. Showalter, Ed., "Sieve: An Email
Filtering Language", work in Filtering Language", work in
progress, draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis, November 2005. progress, draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis, November 2005.
[mailto] Hoffman, P., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The mailto [mailto] Hoffman, P., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The mailto
URL scheme", RFC 2368, July 1998. URL scheme", RFC 2368, July 1998.
7.2. Non-Normative References 7.2. Non-Normative References
[RFC2821] Klensin, J., Ed., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", [RFC2821] Klensin, J., Ed., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol",
 End of changes. 14 change blocks. 
13 lines changed or deleted 84 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/