Internet DRAFT - draft-freed-smtp-limits
draft-freed-smtp-limits
Network Working Group N. Freed
Internet-Draft (deceased)
Intended status: Standards Track J. Klensin
Expires: 25 April 2024 23 October 2023
The LIMITS SMTP Service Extension
draft-freed-smtp-limits-07
Abstract
This document defines a "Limits" extension for the Simple Mail
Transfer Protocol (SMTP), including submission, as well as the Local
Mail Transfer Protocol (LMTP). It also defines an associated limit
registry. The extension provides the means for an SMTP, submission,
or LMTP server to inform the client of limits the server intends to
apply to the protocol during the current session. The client is then
able to adapt its behavior in order to conform to those limits.
Note
RFC Editor: Please remove this note before publication. Please also
remove the problematic email address.
This version (-07) of the draft, and the immediately prior ones (-05
and -06) show a deliberately bogus address for the late Ned Freed
because, at the time of its posting, the IETF's I-D submission tools
and mechanisms, apparently even including tools available to the
Secretariat for manual posting, insisted that all authors have email
addresses, even authors who had passed away.
After a delay of some days after -05 was posted, the issue was
formally reported at https://github.com/ietf-tools/datatracker/
issues/6114
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Freed & Klensin Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LIMITS Extension October 2023
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 25 April 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. The "Limits" SMTP Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Limit Naming Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Interaction With Pipelining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Varying Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5. Interaction With SMTP Minimums . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.6. Multiple EHLO Commands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.7. Syntax Errors in the LIMITS Parameter Value . . . . . . . 6
3.8. Caching of Limit Settings Between Sessions Involving the
Same Client and Server SMTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Initial Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. MAILMAX Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. RCPTMAX Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. RCPTDOMAINMAX Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. SMTP Service Extension Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. SMTP Server Limits Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Freed & Klensin Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LIMITS Extension October 2023
A.1. Acknowledgments from the Last Version Prepared by Ned
Freed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.2. Acknowledgments from Versions Subsequent to Ned Freed's
Passing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix B. Change Log After Version -03 (the last version
prepared entirely by Ned Freed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.1. Changes between draft-freed-smtp-limits-03 (2021-07-12) and
-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.2. Changes between draft-freed-smtp-limits-04 (2022-11-08) and
-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.3. Changes between draft-freed-smtp-limits-05 (2023-08-03) and
-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.4. Changes between draft-freed-smtp-limits-06 (2023-09-05) and
-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
The Simple Mail Transfer Protocol provides the ability to transfer
[SMTP] or submit [SUBMIT] multiple email messages from one host to
another, each with one or more recipients, using a single or multiple
connections.
The Local Mail Transfer Protocol [LMTP] provides the ability to
deliver messages to a system without its own mail queues. Like SMTP,
it allows multiple messages with multiple recipients.
In order to conserve resources as well as protect themselves from
malicious clients, it is necessary for servers to enforce limits on
various aspects of the protocol, e.g., a limit on the number of
recipients that can be specified in a single transaction.
Additionally, servers may also wish to alter the limits they apply
depending on their assessment of the reputation of a particular
client.
The variability of the limits that may be in effect creates a
situation where clients may inadvertently exceed a particular
server's limits, causing servers to respond with temporary (or in
some cases, permanent) errors. This in turn can lead to delays or
even failures in message transfer.
The "Limits" extension provides the means for a server to inform a
client about specific limits in effect for a particular SMTP or LMTP
session in the EHLO or LHLO command response. This information,
combined with the inherent flexibility of these protocols, makes it
possible for clients to avoid server errors and the problems they
cause.
Freed & Klensin Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LIMITS Extension October 2023
SMTP and LMTP servers have always been able to announce a limit using
distinguished syntax in a reply, but this approach requires that the
client first needs to issue a command. The mechanism specified here
avoids the overhead of that approach by announcing limits prior to
any substantive interaction.
Limits are registered with the IANA. Each registration includes the
limit name, value syntax, and a description of its semantics.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form [ABNF]
notation and its core rules to define the formal syntax of the
"Limits" extension.
This specification makes extensive use of the terminology specified
and used in [SMTP].
3. The "Limits" SMTP Extension
Extensions to SMTP are defined in Section 2.2 of [SMTP]. [LMTP]
inherits SMTP's extension mechanism.
The name of the extension is "Limits". Servers implementing this
extension advertise an additional "LIMITS" EHLO (LHLO in LMTP)
keyword. The associated parameter is used by the server to
communicate one or more limits, each with an optional value, to the
client. The syntax of the parameter is:
limits-param = limit-name-value 0*[SP limit-name-value]
limit-name-value = limit-name ["=" limit-value]
limit-name = 1*(ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "_")
limit-value = 1*(%x21-3A / %x3C-7E) ; Any VCHAR except ";"
This extension introduces no new SMTP commands, and does not alter
any existing command. However, it is possible for a LIMITS parameter
to be associated with another SMTP extension that does these things.
3.1. Limits
In order to achieve consistent behavior, all limits MUST be
registered with the IANA, as described below.
Freed & Klensin Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LIMITS Extension October 2023
3.2. Limit Naming Conventions
Limit names MUST be comprehensible, but also should be kept as short
as possible. The use of commonly understood abbreviations, e.g.,
"MAX" for "maximum", is encouraged.
When a limit is associated with a particular command, its name SHOULD
begin with the name of that command.
Limit names SHOULD end with one or more terms that describe the type
of limit.
3.3. Interaction With Pipelining
The "Pipelining" extension [PIPELINING] is commonly used to improve
performance, especially over high latency connections. Pipelining
allows entire transaction to be sent without checking responses and
in some cases it may be possible to send multiple transactions.
The use of pipelining affects limits in an important way: Since a
pipelining client cannot check intermediate command responses without
stalling the pipeline, it cannot count the number of successful
versus failed responses and adjust its behavior accordingly. Limit
designers need to take this into account.
For example, it may seem like it would be better to impose a limit on
the number of successful RCPT TO commands as opposed to the way the
RCPTMAX limit is specified in Section 4.2 below. But counting the
total number of RCPT TOs is simple, whereas counting the number of
successful RCPT TO stalls the pipeline.
3.4. Varying Limits
This extension provides an announcement as part of the reply to an
EHLO command.
Some servers vary their limits, as a session progresses, based on
their obtaining more information. This extension does not attempt to
handle in-session limit changes.
3.5. Interaction With SMTP Minimums
Section 4.5.3.1 of [SMTP] specifies minimum values for various server
sizes, limits, and timeouts, e.g., servers must accept a minimum of
100 RCPT TO commands (section 4.5.3.1.8). Unfortunately, the reality
is that servers routinely impose smaller limits than what SMTP
requires, and when this is done it is especially important for
clients to be aware that this is happening.
Freed & Klensin Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LIMITS Extension October 2023
For this reason there is no requirement that the limits advertised by
this extension comply with the minimums imposed by SMTP.
3.6. Multiple EHLO Commands
These protocols require that the EHLO command (LHLO in LMTP) be
reissued under certain circumstances, e.g., after successful
authentication [AUTH] or negotiation of a security layer [STARTTLS].
Servers MAY return updated limits any time the protocol requires
clients to reissue the EHLO command.
Clients MUST discard any previous limits in favor of those provided
by the most recent EHLO. This includes the case where the original
EHLO provided a set of limits but the subsequent EHLO did not; in
this case the client MUST act as if no limits were communicated.
3.7. Syntax Errors in the LIMITS Parameter Value
Syntax errors in the basic parameter syntax are best handled by
ignoring the value in its entirety; in this case clients SHOULD
proceed as if the LIMITS extension had not been used.
Syntax or other errors in the value syntax of a specific limit,
including unrecognized value keywords, are best handled by ignoring
that limit; in this case the client MUST proceed as if that limit had
not been specified.
It is possible that future specification may create multiple limits
that are interrelated in some way; in this case that specification
MUST specify how an error in the value syntax of one limit affects
the other limits.
3.8. Caching of Limit Settings Between Sessions Involving the Same
Client and Server SMTP
Clients MAY cache limits determined during one session and use them
to optimize their behavior for subsequent sessions. However, since
servers are free to adjust their limits at any time, clients MUST be
able to accommodate any limit changes that occur between sessions.
4. Initial Limits
An initial set of limits is specified in the following sections.
Freed & Klensin Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LIMITS Extension October 2023
4.1. MAILMAX Limit
Name: MAILMAX
Value syntax: %x31-39 0*5DIGIT ; 0 not allowed, 6 digit maximum
Description: MAILMAX specifies the maximum number of transactions
(MAIL FROM commands) the server will accept in a single session. The
count includes all MAIL FROM commands, regardless of whether they
succeed or fail.
Restrictions: None.
Security Considerations: See Section 6
4.2. RCPTMAX Limit
Name: RCPTMAX
Value syntax: %x31-39 0*5DIGIT ; 0 not allowed, 6 digit maximum
Description: RCPTMAX specifies the maximum number of RCPT TO commands
the server will accept in a single transaction. It is not a limit on
the actual number of recipients the message ends up being sent to; a
single RCPT TO command may produce multiple recipients or, in the
event of an error, none.
Restrictions: None.
Security Considerations: See Section 6
4.3. RCPTDOMAINMAX Limit
Name: RCPTDOMAINMAX
Value syntax: %x31-39 0*5DIGIT ; 0 not allowed, 6 digit maximum
Description: RCPTDOMAINMAX specifies the maximum number of different
domains that can appear in a recipient (RCPT TO) address within a
single session. This limit is imposed by some servers that bind to a
specific internal delivery mechanism on receipt of the first RCPT TO
command.
Restrictions: None.
Security Considerations: See Section 6
Freed & Klensin Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LIMITS Extension October 2023
5. Example
A server announces two limits it implements to the client, along with
various other supported extensions, as follows:
S: [wait for open connection]
C: [open connection to server]
S: 220 mail.example.com ESMTP service ready
C: EHLO example.org
S: 250-mail.example.com
S: 250-SMTPUTF8
S: 250-LIMITS RCPTMAX=20 MAILMAX=5
S: 250-SIZE 100000000
S: 250-8BITMIME
S: 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
S: 250-PIPELINING
S: 250-CHUNKING
S: 250 STARTTLS
The client now knows to limit the number of recipients in a
transaction to twenty and the number of transactions in a session to
five.
6. Security Considerations
A malicious server can use limits to overly constrain client
behavior, causing excessive use of client resources.
A malicious client may use the limits a server advertises to optimize
the delivery of unwanted messages.
A man-in-the-middle attack on unprotected SMTP connections can be
used to cause clients to misbehave, which in turn could result in
delivery delays or failures. Loss of reputation for the client could
also occur.
All that said, decades of operational experience with the SMTP "SIZE"
extension [SIZE], which provides servers with the ability to indicate
message size, indicates that such abuse is rare and unlikely to be a
significant problem.
Use of the Limits extension to provide client-specific information -
as opposed to general server limits - unavoidably provides senders
with feedback about their reputation. Malicious senders can exploit
this in various ways, e.g., start by sending good email and then,
once their reputation is established, sending bad email.
Freed & Klensin Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LIMITS Extension October 2023
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. SMTP Service Extension Registry
The IANA is requested to add "LIMITS" to the SMTP Service Extension
Registry:
Keywords: LIMITS
Description: Server limits
Reference: [RFCxxxx]
Note: See "SMTP Server Limits Regisry" below.
7.2. SMTP Server Limits Registry
The IANA is requested to create a new registry in the Mail Parameters
group for SMTP server limits. The policy for this registry is
"Specification Required". Registry entries consist of these required
values:
1. The name of the limit.
2. The syntax of the limit value, if the limit has one. This syntax
MUST conform to the provisions of Section 3 above. In most
cases, the syntax will consist of a keyword designating the limit
type followed by a limit value, using a "name=value" form as
illustrated by the registrations created by this specification in
Section 4 above. Use of [ABNF] is preferred but not required.
If there is no limit value, that should be explicit in the
registration request and the registry.
3. A description of the limit's semantics.
4. Restrictions, if any, on the use of the limit. If the limit is
specific to any of SMTP, message submission, or LMTP, it should
be documented here.
5. Security considerations for the limit
The Designated Expert(s) appointed under the "Specification Required"
procedure should check that registration requests are consistent with
the requirements and intent of the extension mechanisms associated
with SMTP [SMTP], Section 3 above, and the provision of this
specification more generally and offer advice accordingly.
The IANA is also requested to register the limits specified in
Section 4 of this document.
8. References
Freed & Klensin Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LIMITS Extension October 2023
8.1. Normative References
[ABNF] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[PIPELINING]
Freed, N., "SMTP Service Extension for Command
Pipelining", STD 60, RFC 2920, DOI 10.17487/RFC2920,
September 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2920>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[SMTP] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321>.
8.2. Informative References
[AUTH] Siemborski, R., Ed. and A. Melnikov, Ed., "SMTP Service
Extension for Authentication", RFC 4954,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4954, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4954>.
[LMTP] Myers, J., "Local Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2033,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2033, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2033>.
[SIZE] Klensin, J., Freed, N., and K. Moore, "SMTP Service
Extension for Message Size Declaration", STD 10, RFC 1870,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1870, November 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1870>.
[STARTTLS] Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over
Transport Layer Security", RFC 3207, DOI 10.17487/RFC3207,
February 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3207>.
[SUBMIT] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission for Mail",
STD 72, RFC 6409, DOI 10.17487/RFC6409, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6409>.
Freed & Klensin Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LIMITS Extension October 2023
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The concept for this extension came from, and was developed by, Ned
Freed and most of this specification, including substantially of the
technical details, was written by him. Unfortunately, he became ill
and eventually passed away in May 2022 without being able to complete
the document and manage it through IETF Last Call. His contributions
to the Internet, work in the IETF, and the personal style that made
both possible are irreplaceable and greatly missed. With the support
of the community, John Klensin picked the document up, responded to
some additional feedback, and got the document into what is believed
to be a finished state. In the interest of preserving this as Ned's
document, a few comments that proposed additional features and
options were set aside for future work rather than our having to
guess at whether Ned would have approved of them.
The acknowledgments below are divided into two parts, those written
by Ned and those associated with input to the document after his
passing.
A.1. Acknowledgments from the Last Version Prepared by Ned Freed
A lot of people have helped make this specification possible. The
author wishes to thank Claus Assmann, Laura Atkins, Alex Brotman,
Richard Clayton, Dave Crocker, Viktor Dukhovni, Arnt Gulbrandsen,
Jeremy Harris, Todd Herr, Mike Hillyer, Matthias Leisi, John Klensin,
Valdis Klētnieks, John Levine, Alexey Melnikov, Keith Moore, Michael
Peddemors, Hector Santos, George Schlossnagle, Rolf E. Sonneveld,
and Alessandro Vesely for their contributions and reviews.
A.2. Acknowledgments from Versions Subsequent to Ned Freed's Passing
Additional helpful suggestions were received when the draft was
requeued in the last part of 2022 and thereafter. Reviews and
suggestions from Alex Brotman, Dave Crocker, Gene Hightower, Murray
S. Kucherawy, Barry Leiba, John Levine, and Phil Pennock were
especially helpful in identifying errors and suggesting clarifying
some issues with the document without changing Ned's fundamental
issues or very much of his text.
IETF Last Call comments (and comments immediately before it started)
from people not listed above that resulted in document changes were
received from Amanda Baber (for IANA), Linda Dunbar, Paul Kyzivat,
and Phil Pennock.
Freed & Klensin Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LIMITS Extension October 2023
Appendix B. Change Log After Version -03 (the last version prepared
entirely by Ned Freed)
RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication
B.1. Changes between draft-freed-smtp-limits-03 (2021-07-12) and -04
Version 03 of this draft was posted by Ned Freed on 2021-07-12 and
appeared to be nearly ready for IETF Last Call at that point.
Unfortunately, with Ned Freed's illness and untimely passing in May
2022, the draft was allowed to expire and drop off the radar. This
appendix documents changes starting with draft-freed-smtp-limits-04,
i.e., after the last draft Ned Freed personally edited.
* UPgraded from RFCXMLv2 to v3 and added the initial note below the
abstract and this (redundant) Appendix. no other intentional
changes other than....
* Adjusted Section 3.7 to slightly clarify the intent in the second
case.
B.2. Changes between draft-freed-smtp-limits-04 (2022-11-08) and -05
* Corrected a few typographical and minor grammatical and stylistic
issues.
* Made multiple small changes and corrections reflecting comments
from the mailing list.
* In the hope that this version will soon be ready for IETF last
call, removed the introductory note and restructured and rewrote
the acknowledgments, moving much of that introductory material
there as well as acknowledging input and other comments since work
on the document was restarted somewhat over a year ago.
B.3. Changes between draft-freed-smtp-limits-05 (2023-08-03) and -06
* Added some words about Designated Experts and a comment about
hybrid to Section 7.2.
B.4. Changes between draft-freed-smtp-limits-06 (2023-09-05) and -07
* Revised IANA Considerations (Section 7) to reflect comments in
IANA review dated 2023-10-02.
* Corrected several typographical errors and small editorial issues.
* Updated Acknowledgments.
Freed & Klensin Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LIMITS Extension October 2023
Authors' Addresses
Ned Freed
(deceased)
Email: ned.freed@deceased.alt
John C. Klensin
1770 Massachusetts Ave, Suite 322
Cambridge, MA 02140
United States of America
Email: john-ietf@jck.com
Freed & Klensin Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 13]
