Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-appsawg-received-state
draft-ietf-appsawg-received-state
Individual submission D. Crocker
Internet-Draft Brandenburg InternetWorking
Intended status: Standards Track M. Kucherawy
Expires: December 29, 2012 Cloudmark, Inc.
June 27, 2012
Indicating Email Handling States in Trace Fields
draft-ietf-appsawg-received-state-04
Abstract
This document registers a trace field clause for use in indicating
transitions between handling queues or processing states, including
enacting inter- and intra-host message transitions. This might
include message quarantining, mailing list moderation, timed
delivery, queueing for further analysis, content conversion, or other
similar causes, as well as optionally identifying normal handling
queues.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Crocker & Kucherawy Expires December 29, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Email Handling States June 2012
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Trace Clause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Granularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Mail Parameters Additional-registered-clauses
Sub-Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Mail Parameters Registered-states Sub-Registry . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Trace Field Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
A.1. Typical Delivery Without Obvious Extra Handling . . . . . 11
A.2. Delivery With Moderation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Crocker & Kucherawy Expires December 29, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Email Handling States June 2012
1. Introduction
[SMTP] defines the content of email message trace fields, commonly
the "Received" header field. These are typically used to record an
audit trail of the path a message follows from origin to destination,
with one such field added each time a message moves from one host to
the next.
Section 3.7.2 of that document mentions that "the most important use
of of Received: lines is for debugging mail faults [...]".
There are some cases where there may be large time gaps between trace
fields. Though this might be caused by transient communication
issues, they might also be caused by policy decisions or special
processing regarding the content of the message, authorization of
some identity on the message, or transitions between major software
components. Common examples include message quarantines (filters
that cause a message to be held pending further evaluation, or
delivery of a message pending manual operator action), pending
content analysis, or mailing list servers that impose moderation
rules (mailing list owner action required regarding mail from authors
not subscribed to those lists).
This document registers a new optional clause that can be used in
trace fields to indicate that a message entered such a special
processing queue or state for some period. This allows inspection of
the trace information to reveal that the cause for a time gap in
trace fields was imposed by additional processing rather than one
caused by transient technical difficulties.
2. Key Words
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 [KEYWORDS].
3. Trace Clause
This specification defines a clause, called "state", which MAY be
used when creating a Recevied header field (see Section 4.4 of
[SMTP]) to indicate the nature of additional handling imposed on the
relaying of a message toward its recipient(s). It is followed by a
single keyword that provides that detail. A Mail Transfer Agent
(MTA) or other handling agent that determines a message has entered a
state other than normal queueing of messages for relaying or delivery
MAY generate a trace field including one of these clauses. That is,
the presence of this clause on a trace field is an indication of the
entry of the message into that state; a later trace field added would
Crocker & Kucherawy Expires December 29, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Email Handling States June 2012
indicate its departure from that state.
An MTA implementing this specification SHOULD add a Received field as
described whenever:
a. It determines that a special handling condition will occur, and
places it into that condition; or
b. It determines that no special handling is required, and prepares
it for relay to the next handling agent.
An MTA need not add a Received field indicating preparation for
normal handoff to the next handling agent if it has already added a
Received field for some other reason. Trace data added by the next
handling agent will imply the message's exit from the special
handling condition.
If a single MTA processes a message through multiple special handling
conditions, it MAY add a Received for each distinct condition.
For example: Presume a message will be injected into MTA-1, then
travel to MTA-3 via MTA-2, and then MTA-3 enacts final delivery. At
MTA-2, it is determined that some action will be taken that will
cause the message to undergo some handling change that is outside of
typical message flow. In this case:
1. MTA-1 adds a typical Received field and relays it to MTA-2
2. MTA-2 determines that the atypical handling will occur and adds a
Received field using the extension specified here
3. On completion of the atypical handling, MTA-2 relays the message
to MTA-3
4. MTA-3 adds a typical Received field and enacts final delivery of
the message
Appropriate use of this mechanism does not include associating meta-
data with the message, such as categorizing the message (e.g., the
notions of "is spam" or "was 8-bit, converted to 7-bit"). Processing
agents also cannot reliably use this mechanism to determine anything
about the message content, since there is no guarantee that all
agents in the chain of handling made such annotations allowing
correct conclusions. The sole purpose here is to allow one to
determine the point(s) in the chain of custody of a message at which
the message was subjected to handling outside of normal message
routing and queueing.
Crocker & Kucherawy Expires December 29, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Email Handling States June 2012
The following state keywords are defined in this document; extensions
may define other registered keywords (see Section 6.2):
auth: The message entered a queue pending authentication of some
identifier in the message.
content: The message entered a queue pending content analysis, such
as scanning for spam or viruses.
convert: The message entered a queue pending content conversion.
moderation: The message entered a hold pending mailing list
moderator action.
normal: The message is not in an administrative hold and is queued
for or is being handed off to the next handling agent (which may
be local delivery). This is the default interpretation when no
"state" clause is present.
other: The message entered a hold or queue for reasons not covered
by other keywords in this list, and not for transient technology
issues.
outbound: The message entered a queue for outbound relaying. This
is typically the last case added for a single host, and the next
Received header field is expected to be added by some other host.
quarantine: The message entered a hold in an isolation queue pending
operator action for local policy reasons.
timed: The message entered a hold in order to meet a requested
delivery window, such as is defined in [FUTURERELEASE].
The "state" clause is added in Section 6 to the Additional-
Registered-Clauses IANA sub-registry. The ABNF for this clause is:
Crocker & Kucherawy Expires December 29, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Email Handling States June 2012
State = CFWS "state" FWS queue-state-keyword [ "/" value ]
queue-state-keyword = ( reg-state-keyword / unreg-state-keyword )
reg-state-keyword = ( "auth" / "content" / "convert" /
"moderation" / "normal" / "other" /
"outbound" / "quarantine" / "timed" /
additional-state-keyword )
additional-state-keyword = token
; MUST be registered; see
; "IANA Considerations" below
value = token
unreg-state-keyword = token
"FWS" and "CFWS" are defined in [MAIL]. "token" is defined in [MIME].
A transfer agent making use of this extension MAY also include header
field comments to provide additional information.
The "value" is available for providing additional labels as
explanation for the state transition. Examples could include:
o convert/unicode2ascii
o moderation/not-subscribed
o quarantine/spam
4. Discussion
Handling agents are not expected to implement or support all of
these. Indeed, recording trace information for all of the states
described above could make the header of a message inordinately
large. Rather, an agent is encouraged to apply state annotations
when a message enters a handling queue where a significant condition
occurs or where significant additional processing or delay is
possible, and especially when a handoff has occurred between two
different, independent agents.
For example, an MTA receiving a message, doing message
authentication, scanning for viruses and spam, and then putting it in
an outbound queue could add four Received header fields denoting each
of these states. However, where they are all done as part of a
single system process, in a single pass, doing so would be considered
unusual (and extremely verbose). This method SHOULD NOT be applied
Crocker & Kucherawy Expires December 29, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Email Handling States June 2012
except when doing detailed analysis of a single component to identify
performance issues with those steps.
Rather, an agent that wishes to make a state annotation SHOULD add
only a single Received header field including such annotation, thus
indicating (a) the time of completion of its handling of the message
via the date portion of the field, and (b) the final disposition of
that message relative to that agent. For example, an MTA receiving a
message that performs various checks on the message before
immediately handing it off to a Mailing List Manager (MLM) would only
record a "normal" state, assuming it passes those checks. The MLM
would then evaluate the message and record its own state once it
decides what the next step will be for the handling of that message.
5. Granularity
The degree of granularity -- and therefore the degree of verbosity --
recorded through the use of this additional trace clause is likely to
vary depending on circumstances. It will typically be the case that
use of this clause will be limited to "unusual" transitions, such as
when a message requires additional scrutiny or other processing, or
needs to be quarantined.
Somewhat greater granularity might also include transitions of
administrative responsibility, such as between an Mail Transfer Agent
(MTA) operator and a Mailing List Manager (MLM) operator. This could
be further enhanced to note some transitions that are interesting
only when other transitions have occurred, such as noting entry to
the outbound queue only when the message is originating from an
"interesting" source, like an MLM, since an MLM can introduce
significant changes to the message or delivery delay and it could be
useful to know when it completed its processing, as distinct from the
subsequent processing by the originating MTA. In circumstances
needing very fine-grained trace information, fields might be created
to note all of these "significant" network architecture transitions.
One should note, however, when choosing higher levels of granularity,
that the Received header fields present on a message could be counted
by MTAs when trying to decide whether or not a message routing loop
is in effect. A message with an abundance of these might cause an
incorrect determination that the message is in a delivery loop,
causing it to be removed from the mail stream. See Section 6.3 of
[SMTP] for further discussion.
6. IANA Considerations
Crocker & Kucherawy Expires December 29, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Email Handling States June 2012
6.1. Mail Parameters Additional-registered-clauses Sub-Registry
This document adds to the "Additional-registered-clauses" sub-
registry of the "Mail Parameters" registry, created by [SMTP], the
following entry:
Clause name: state
Description: Indicates entry into a special queue state
Syntax Summary: state <state-name>
Reference: [this document]
6.2. Mail Parameters Registered-states Sub-Registry
The "Mail Parameters" registry at IANA is updated by the creation of
the "Registered-states" sub-registry to contain valid state keywords
for use with this specification. Updates to this registry are
governed by the First Come First Served rules of [IANA] for new
registrations. Changes to the status of existing entries are limited
to the original registrant or IESG approval.
Discussion of all registry updates is encouraged via one or more IETF
mailing lists that typically cover email-related subjects prior to
approval of the change, as a way of documenting the work. The
ietf-smtp@ietf.org list is suggested.
Note that only registrations of queue state keywords are permitted.
The registry is not to be used for specifying secondary information
(i.e., the "value" part of the ABNF in Section 3).
Registrations are to include the following entries:
Name: The name of the state keyword being defined or updated, which
conforms to the ABNF shown in Section 3.
Description: A brief description of the keyword's meaning.
Specification: The specification document that defines the queue
state being registered, or if no stable reference exists, a more
detailed explanation of the queue state than is in the
"Description", sufficient to allow interoperability.
Use: One of "current" (the state keyword is in current use),
"deprecated" (the state keyword is in use but not recommended for
new implementations), or "historic" (the state keyword is no
longer in substantial current use).
Crocker & Kucherawy Expires December 29, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Email Handling States June 2012
The initial registration set is as follows:
+------------+------------------------+-----------------+---------+
| Name | Description | Specification | Use |
+------------+------------------------+-----------------+---------+
| auth | Held for message | [this document] | current |
| | authentication | | |
+------------+------------------------+-----------------+---------+
| content | Held for message | [this document] | current |
| | content analysis | | |
+------------+------------------------+-----------------+---------+
| convert | Held for message | [this document] | current |
| | content conversion | | |
+------------+------------------------+-----------------+---------+
| moderation | Held for list | [this document] | current |
| | moderation | | |
+------------+------------------------+-----------------+---------+
| normal | Message is not being | [this document] | current |
| | held other than to | | |
| | accommodate typical | | |
| | relaying handling | | |
+------------+------------------------+-----------------+---------+
| other | Held for causes not | [this document] | current |
| | covered by other | | |
| | registered state | | |
| | keywords | | |
+------------+------------------------+-----------------+---------+
| outbound | Message placed in | [this document] | current |
| | outbound queue | | |
+------------+------------------------+-----------------+---------+
| quarantine | Held for operator | [this document] | current |
| | action due to content | | |
| | analysis or local | | |
| | policy | | |
+------------+------------------------+-----------------+---------+
| timed | Held to accommodate a | [this document] | current |
| | specific requested | | |
| | delivery window | | |
+------------+------------------------+-----------------+---------+
7. Security Considerations
The use of this trace information can reveal hints as to local policy
that was in effect at the time of message handling.
Further discussion about trace field security can be found in Section
7.6 of [SMTP].
Crocker & Kucherawy Expires December 29, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Email Handling States June 2012
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[IANA] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs",
BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[MAIL] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
October 2008.
[MIME] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Simple Mail Transfer
Protocol", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[SMTP] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol",
RFC 5321, October 2008.
8.2. Informative References
[FUTURERELEASE] White, G. and G. Vaudreuil, "SMTP Submission Service
Extension for Future Message Release", RFC 4865,
May 2007.
Appendix A. Trace Field Examples
This section includes a sample of the new trace field clause in use.
Crocker & Kucherawy Expires December 29, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Email Handling States June 2012
A.1. Typical Delivery Without Obvious Extra Handling
Typical message delivery
Received: from newyork.example.com
(newyork.example.com [192.0.2.250])
by mail-router.example.net (8.11.6/8.11.6)
with ESMTP id i7PK0sH7021929
for <recipient@example.net>;
Fri, Feb 15 2002 17:19:22 -0800
Received: from internal.example.com
(internal.example.com [192.168.0.1])
by newyork.example.com (8.11.6/8.11.6)
with ESMTP id i9MKZCRd064134
for <recipient@example.net>;
Fri, Feb 15 2002 17:19:08 -0800
Example 1: Typical message delivery with no appreciable extra
handling; only Received header fields shown
A.2. Delivery With Moderation
Message delivery after moderation
Received: from newyork.example.com
(newyork.example.com [192.0.2.250])
by mail-router.example.net (8.11.6/8.11.6)
with ESMTP id i7PK0sH7021929
for <recipient@example.net>;
Fri, Feb 15 2002 18:33:29 -0800
Received: from internal.example.com
(internal.example.com [192.168.0.1])
by newyork.example.com (8.11.6/8.11.6)
with ESMTP id i9MKZCRd064134
for <secret-list@example.com>
state moderation (sender not subscribed);
Fri, Feb 15 2002 17:19:08 -0800
Example 2: Message held for moderation; only Received header fields
shown
The message passed from internal.example.com to newyork.example.com
intended for a mailing list hosted at the latter. For list
administrative reasons, the message is held there for moderation. It
is finally released over an hour later and passed to the next host.
A comment after the state expression indicates the actual cause for
the administrative hold.
Crocker & Kucherawy Expires December 29, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Email Handling States June 2012
Appendix B. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the following for their reviews and
constructive criticisms of this proposal: Tony Finch, Ned Freed, Carl
S. Gutenkunst, John Levine, Bill McQuillan, S. Moonesamy, Alexey
Melnikov, Robert A. Rosenberg, Hector Santos, Rolf Sonneveld, and
Mykyta Yevstifeyev.
Authors' Addresses
D. Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
675 Spruce Dr.
Sunnyvale 94086
USA
Phone: +1.408.246.8253
EMail: dcrocker@bbiw.net
URI: http://bbiw.net
Murray S. Kucherawy
Cloudmark, Inc.
128 King St., 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94107
US
EMail: superuser@gmail.com
Crocker & Kucherawy Expires December 29, 2012 [Page 12]
