Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-emailcore-as
draft-ietf-emailcore-as
EMAILCORE J.C. Klensin, Ed.
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track K. Murchison, Ed.
Expires: 20 June 2024 Fastmail
E. Sam, Ed.
18 December 2023
Applicability Statement for IETF Core Email Protocols
draft-ietf-emailcore-as-09
Abstract
Electronic mail is one of the oldest Internet applications that is
still in very active use. While the basic protocols and formats for
mail transport and message formats have evolved slowly over the
years, events and thinking in more recent years have supplemented
those core protocols with additional features and suggestions for
their use. This Applicability Statement describes the relationship
among many of those protocols and provides guidance and makes
recommendations for the use of features of the core protocols.
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/.
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 20 June 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
Klensin, et al. Expires 20 June 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Core Email A/S December 2023
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
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Applicability of Some SMTP Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Handling of the Domain Argument to the EHLO Command . . . 4
2.2. Use of Address Literals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Use of Addresses in Top-Level Domains . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Use of SMTP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Applicability of Message Format Provisions . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Use of Empty Quoted Strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Use of Received Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Line Length Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Use of Email Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Case-Sensitivity, Delimiters, and Mailbox Equivalency . . 7
4.2. Use of non-ASCII Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Use and Validation in HTML and Other Contexts . . . . . . 8
5. Use of Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) . . . . . 8
6. Confidentiality and Authentication with SMTP . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Optional Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Required Confidentiality, with Receiving Server
Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.3. Message-Level Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.4. SMTP Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.5. Message-Level Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.1. Changes from draft-klensin-email-core-as-00 (2020-03-30) to
draft-ietf-emailcore-as-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.2. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-00 (2020-10-06) to
-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.3. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-01 (2021-04-09) to
-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.4. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-02 (2021-08-06) to
-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Klensin, et al. Expires 20 June 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Core Email A/S December 2023
A.5. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-03 (2022-01-31) to
-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.6. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-04 (2022-05-21) to
-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A.7. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-05 (2022-10-24) to
-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.8. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-06 (2022-11-07) to
-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.9. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-07 (2023-03-13) to
-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.10. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-08 (2023-12-XX) to
-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
This document is an Applicability Statement [RFC2026], Section 3.2
that provides guidance in the use of the Internet's core email
specifications, the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)
[I-D.ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis] and the Internet Message Format (IMF)
[I-D.ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis], and some extensions that have been
built on them. In order to promote interoperability amongst senders,
receivers, and intermediaries, it includes discussions and
recommendations about selected features of SMTP, IMF, and certain
extensions to them that are required, recommended, or to be avoided
except in special cases. Furthermore, this document discusses some
common mechanisms for confidentiality and authentication in
electronic mail.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
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.
2. Applicability of Some SMTP Provisions
Over the years since [RFC5321] was published in October 2008, usage
of SMTP has evolved, machines and network speeds have increased, and
the frequency with which SMTP senders and receivers have to be
prepared to deal with systems that are disconnected from the Internet
for long periods or that require many hops to reach has decreased.
During the same period, the IETF has become much more sensitive to
privacy and security issues and the need to be more resistant or
robust against spam and other attacks. In addition SMTP (and Message
Format) extensions have been introduced that are expected to evolve
Klensin, et al. Expires 20 June 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Core Email A/S December 2023
the Internet's mail system to better accommodate environments in
which Basic Latin Script is not the norm.
This section describes adjustments that may be appropriate for SMTP
under various circumstances and discusses the applicability of other
protocols that represent newer work or that are intended to deal with
relatively newer issues.
2.1. Handling of the Domain Argument to the EHLO Command
If the Domain argument to the EHLO command does not have an address
record in the DNS that matches the IP address of the client, the SMTP
server may refuse any mail from the client as part of established
anti-abuse practice. Operational experience has demonstrated that
the lack of a matching address record for the the domain name
argument is at best an indication of a poorly-configured MTA, and at
worst that of an abusive host.
2.2. Use of Address Literals
The address-literal ABNF non-terminal is used in various places in
[I-D.ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis] grammar however, for SMTP connections
over the public internet, an address-literal as the argument to EHLO
command or the Domain part of the Mailbox argument to the MAIL FROM
command is quite likely to result in the message being rejected as a
matter of policy at many sites, since they are deemed to be signs of
at best a misconfigured server, and at worst either a compromised
host or a server that's intentionally configured to hide its
identity.
2.3. Use of Addresses in Top-Level Domains
While addresses in top-level domains (TLDs) are syntactically valid,
mail to these addresses has never worked reliably. A handful of
country code TLDs have top level MX records but they have never been
widely used nor well supported. In 2013 [RFC7085] found 18 TLDs with
MX records, which dropped to 17 in 2021 despite many new TLDs having
been added.
Mail sent to addresses with single label domains has typically
expected the address to be an abbreviation to be completed by a
search list, so mail to bob@sales would be completed to
bob@sales.example.com. This shortcut has led to unfortunate
consequnces; in one famous case, in 1991 when the .CS domain was
added to the root, mail in computer science departments started to
fail as mail to bob@cs was now treated as mail to Czechoslovakia.
Hence, for reliable service, mail SHOULD NOT use addreses that
contain single label domains.
Klensin, et al. Expires 20 June 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Core Email A/S December 2023
2.4. Use of SMTP Extensions
As SMTP has evolved over the years, several extensions have become
ubiquitous. As a result, the following extensions MUST be supported
by SMTP senders and receivers:
* 8-bit MIME [RFC6152]
* Deliver Status Notifications [RFC3461]
Similarly, the following extensions SHOULD be supported by SMTP
senders and receivers:
* Command Pipelining [RFC2920]
* Internationalized Email [RFC6531]
Furthermore, while Enhanced Mail System Status Codes ([RFC3463],
[RFC5248]) are widely supported, they are not ubiquitous.
Nevertheless, they have been found to be useful to SMTP senders in
determining the exact reason for a transmission failure in a machine-
readable, language-independent manner, thus allowing them to present
more detailed and language-specific error messages to users. Given
the usefulness of these enhanced codes, SMTP receivers are
RECOMMENDED to implement the SMTP Service Extension for Returning
Enhanced Error Codes [RFC2034] utilizing the codes registered in
[RFC5248].
3. Applicability of Message Format Provisions
This section describes adjustments to the Internet Message Format
that may be appropriate under various circumstances.
3.1. Use of Empty Quoted Strings
The quoted-string ABNF non-terminal is used in various places in
[I-D.ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis] grammar. While it allows for empty
quoted string, such construct is going to cause interoperability
issues when used in certain header fields. In particular, use of
empty quoted strings is NOT RECOMMENDED in "received-token" (a
component of a Received header field), "keywords" (a component of a
Keywords header field) and "local-part" (left hand side of email
addresses). Use of empty quoted strings is in particular problematic
in the "local-part". For example, all of the following email
addresses are non-interoperable:
"".bar@example.com
Klensin, et al. Expires 20 June 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Core Email A/S December 2023
foo.""@example.net
""@example.com
Use of empty quoted strings is fine in "display-name".
3.2. Use of Received Header Fields
3.2.1. Generation
Email addresses are commonly classified as Personally Identifiable
Information (PII). Improper application of the FOR clause in
Received header fields can result in disclosure of PII. As such, the
FOR clause MUST NOT be generated if the message copy is associated
with multiple recipients from mutliple SMTP RCPT commands.
Otherwise, the value of the FOR clause MUST contain the RCPT address
that caused the message to be routed to the recipient of the given
copy of the message.
Note however, that if a mail system generates a FOR clause when there
is only a single recipient, and doesn't generate one when there are
multiple recipients, the absence of the field is an indication that
there is another recipient, which may allow someone to infer that a
"blind" copy is involved.
3.2.2. Consumption
Received header fields are primarily for use when there are concerns
about a message, such as to analyze handling or delivery problems, or
to aid evaluation of a message with suspicious content or attributes.
Received header fields are easily created and have no direct security
or privacy protections.
Therefore, the fields do not warrant automatic trust. They should be
used with care, for whatever information is deemed valuable, and
especially when syntax or values occur that are not defined by the
specifications [I-D.ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis]
[I-D.ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis].
3.3. Line Length Limits
Clarify 78 octet limit versus 998 line length limit (Issue #38)...
4. Use of Email Addresses
Klensin, et al. Expires 20 June 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Core Email A/S December 2023
4.1. Case-Sensitivity, Delimiters, and Mailbox Equivalency
SMTP specifies that the local-part of an email address is case-
sensitive (see Section 2.4 of [I-D.ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis]):
The local-part of a mailbox MUST BE treated as case
sensitive. Therefore, SMTP implementations MUST take
care to preserve the case of mailbox local-parts.
In particular, for some hosts, the user "smith" is
different from the user "Smith". However, exploiting
the case sensitivity of mailbox local-parts impedes
interoperability and is discouraged.
While case-sensitivity is specified as an absolute requirement, it is
important to stress that most implementations do not make case
distinctions in local parts (most treat "smith", "Smith", and "SMITH"
as the same), and most implementations do preserve the case that is
received (from SMTP or HTTP, from address books, or from user input).
Maximum interoperability will be achieved by keeping local-parts
unchanged (and especially making no attempt to change their case in
any way) and by assuming that local-parts that differ only in their
case probably refer to the same mailbox. This is particularly
important for software that validates user-input fields, where case
changes are tempting, but must be avoided.
It is also important to note, as we encounter non-ASCII local-parts
over time, that case changes are both character-set dependent and
language dependent, and attempts to change case without having the
full context necessary are likely to be wrong often enough to matter.
Additionally, final delivery systems vary in how they interpret the
use of delimiters such as '+' and '.' in local-parts. Some systems
make distinctions between local-parts such as "smith" and
"smith+foo", or "jane.doe" and "janedoe", while others treat them as
referring to the same mailboxes respectively. Since only the final
delivery system can properly interpret the local-part of an address,
originating and transit/relay mail systems are discouraged from
making any assumptions as to address equivalency or from making any
changes to local-parts containing such delimiters.
4.2. Use of non-ASCII Characters
Proper generation and transmission of email addresses containing non-
ASCII characters is discussed in [RFC6530]. SMTP clients and servers
that attempt to use the popular web convention of Percent-Encoding
non-ASCII characters (see Section 2.1 of [RFC3986]) SHALL NOT assume
that a downstream system will interpret the email address accordingly
without prior knowledge.
Klensin, et al. Expires 20 June 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Core Email A/S December 2023
4.3. Use and Validation in HTML and Other Contexts
Email addresses are frequently used as input in HyperText Markup
Language (HTML) forms but the allowed grammar of these email
addresses is more restrictive than the grammar for a 'Mailbox' in
Section 4.1.2 of [I-D.ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis] (the lack of quoted
strings and limited characters allowed in domains). Implementations
that intend to accept email addresses in HTML forms are encouraged to
consult the valid email address grammar in Section 4.10.5.1.5 of
[HTML].
Additionally, the following general guidance is provided:
* Few mail systems allow leading, trailing, or consecutive unquoted
dots ('.') in the local-part of email addresses even though the
HTML grammar referenced above currently allows them.
Consequently, implementations are discouraged from accepting such
addresses.
* Some mail systems allow a trailing dot ('.') in the domain part of
email addresses (as allowed by Domain Names [RFC1035]), but this
is not interoperable with all systems. Consequently,
implementations are encouraged to strip trailing dots from the
domain part of email addresses.
5. Use of Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME)
Although the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) [RFC2045]
specification and its predecessors have remained separate from the
Internet Message Format (IMF) [I-D.ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis]
specification and its predecessors, MIME features such as non-textual
message bodies, multi-part message bodies, and the use of character
sets other than US-ASCII in message bodies and header fields have
become nearly ubiquitous in contemporary email. As a result, IMF
generators and parsers are expected to support MIME.
6. Confidentiality and Authentication with SMTP
SMTP is specified without embedded mechanisms for authentication or
confidentiality; its traffic is therefore "in the clear". Years of
operational experience have shown that such transmission exposes the
message to easy compromise, including wiretapping and spoofing. To
mitigate these risks, operation of SMTP has evolved over the years so
that it is used with the benefit of Transport Layer Security (TLS)
[RFC8446] to provide both confidentiality and authentication in the
transmission of messages. This section discusses those topics and
their most common uses.
Klensin, et al. Expires 20 June 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Core Email A/S December 2023
It is important that the reader understand what is meant by the terms
"Authentication" and "Confidentiality", and for that we will borrow
directly from RFC8446.
* Authentication is the process of establishing the identity of one
or more of the endpoints of a communication channel. TLS only
requires authentication of the server side of the communication
channel; authentication of the client side is optional.
* The term "confidentiality" describes a state where the data (i.e.,
the message) is transmitted in a way that it is only visible to
the endpoints of a communication channel.
It is not uncommon for implementers to use the term "encryption" to
mean "confidentiality", but this is not quite correct. Rather,
encryption using TLS is the current method by which confidentiality
is achieved with SMTP, but that does not mean that future methods
might not be developed.
Note: With typical email use of TLS, authentication only is performed
for the target receiving server and is not done for the sending
client. That is, it serves to validate that the connection has been
made to the intended server, but does not validate who initiated it.
6.1. Optional Confidentiality
The most common implementation of message confidentiality is what's
known as "opportunistic TLS", which is frequently referred to as
"opportunistic encryption". With this method, a receiving server
announces in its greeting that it is capable of supporting TLS
encryption through the presence of the "STARTTLS" keyword. The
sending client then attempts to negotiate an encrypted connection,
and if successful, transmits the message in encrypted form; if
negotiation fails, the client falls back to sending the message in
clear text.
Opportunistic TLS is confidentiality without authentication, because
no effort is made to authenticate the receiving server, and it is
optional confidentiality due to the ability to fall back to
transmission in the clear if a secure connection cannot be
established. That said, most modern implementations of SMTP support
this method, especially at the largest mailbox providers, and so the
vast majority of email traffic is encrypted during its time
transiting from the client to the server.
Klensin, et al. Expires 20 June 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Core Email A/S December 2023
Note: While TLS provides protection while the message is in transit,
there is no guarantee that the message will be stored in encrypted
fashion at its destination. In fact, storage in plain text should be
expected!
6.2. Required Confidentiality, with Receiving Server Authentication
Two protocols exist that move message confidentiality from optional
to required (with conditions as noted below) - MTA-STS [RFC8461] and
DANE for SMTP [RFC7672]. While they differ in their implementation
details, receiving servers relying on either protocol are stating
that they only accept mail if the transmission can be encrypted with
TLS, and a failure to negotiate a secure connection MUST result in
the sending client refusing to transmit the message. Support for
both protocols is increasing, but is not yet mandatory.
These two protocols differ from Opportunistic TLS in that they
require receiving server authentication and there is no fallback to
sending in the clear if negotiation of an encrypted connection fails.
Note: Both protocols mentioned in this section rely not only on the
receiving server but also the sending client supporting the protocol
intended to be used. If the sending client does not implement or
understand the protocol requested by the receiving server, the
sending client will use Opportunistic TLS or clear-text to transmit
the message.
6.3. Message-Level Authentication
Protocols exist to allow for authentication of different identities
associated with an email message - SPF [RFC7208] and DKIM [RFC6376].
A third protocol, DMARC [RFC7489], relies on SPF and DKIM to allow
for validation of the domain in the visible From header, and a
fourth, ARC [RFC8617], provides a way for each hop to record results
of authentication checks performed at that hop.
All of these are outside the scope of this document, as they are
outside the scope of SMTP. They deal with validating the authorized
usage of one or more domains in an email message, and not with
establishing the identity of the receiving server.
6.4. SMTP Authentication
SMTP Authentication [RFC4954], which is often abbreviated as SMTP
AUTH, is an extension to SMTP. While its name might suggest that it
would be within scope for this section of the Applicability
Statement, nothing could be further from the truth.
Klensin, et al. Expires 20 June 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Core Email A/S December 2023
SMTP AUTH defines a method for a client to identify itself to a
Message Submission Agent (MSA) when presenting a message for
transmission, usually using ports 465 or 587 rather than the
traditional port 25. The most common implementation of SMTP AUTH is
for a person to present a username and password to their mailbox
provider's outbound SMTP server when configuring their MUA for
sending mail.
6.5. Message-Level Confidentiality
Protocols such as S/MIME [RFC8551] and OpenPGP [RFC4880] exist to
allow for message confidentiality outside of the operation of SMTP.
That is to say, using these protocols results in encryption of the
message prior to its being submitted to the SMTP communications
channel, and decryption of the message is the responsibility of the
message recipient. There are numerous implementations of these
protocols, too many to list here. As they operate fully independent
of SMTP, they are out of scope for this document.
7. Acknowledgments
The Emailcore group arose out of discussions on the ietf-smtp group
over changes and additions that should be made to the core email
protocols. It was agreed upon that it was time to create a working
group that would fix many potential errors and opportunities for
misunderstandings within the RFCs.
Special thanks to the following for providing significant portions of
text for this document: Todd Herr, Barry Leiba, John Levine, Alexey
Melnikov.
8. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no requests to or actions for IANA. The IANA
registries associated with the protocol specifications it references
are specified in their respective documents.
9. Security Considerations
Security and privacy considerations are discussed throughout this
document as they pertain to the referenced specifications.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
Klensin, et al. Expires 20 June 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Core Email A/S December 2023
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, DOI 10.17487/RFC2026, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026>.
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, DOI 10.17487/RFC2045, November 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2045>.
[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>.
10.2. Informative References
[HTML] Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group, "HTML
Living Standard", 4 October 2022,
<https://html.spec.whatwg.org/>.
[I-D.ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis]
Klensin, J. C., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5321bis-
23, 10 December 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
emailcore-rfc5321bis-23>.
[I-D.ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis]
Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-08, 20
September 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-emailcore-rfc5322bis-08>.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC2034] Freed, N., "SMTP Service Extension for Returning Enhanced
Error Codes", RFC 2034, DOI 10.17487/RFC2034, October
1996, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2034>.
[RFC2920] 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>.
Klensin, et al. Expires 20 June 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Core Email A/S December 2023
[RFC3461] Moore, K., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service
Extension for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs)",
RFC 3461, DOI 10.17487/RFC3461, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3461>.
[RFC3463] Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes",
RFC 3463, DOI 10.17487/RFC3463, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3463>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC4880] Callas, J., Donnerhacke, L., Finney, H., Shaw, D., and R.
Thayer, "OpenPGP Message Format", RFC 4880,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4880, November 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4880>.
[RFC4954] 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>.
[RFC5248] Hansen, T. and J. Klensin, "A Registry for SMTP Enhanced
Mail System Status Codes", BCP 138, RFC 5248,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5248, June 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5248>.
[RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321>.
[RFC6152] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., and D. Crocker, Ed.,
"SMTP Service Extension for 8-bit MIME Transport", STD 71,
RFC 6152, DOI 10.17487/RFC6152, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6152>.
[RFC6376] Crocker, D., Ed., Hansen, T., Ed., and M. Kucherawy, Ed.,
"DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", STD 76,
RFC 6376, DOI 10.17487/RFC6376, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6376>.
[RFC6530] Klensin, J. and Y. Ko, "Overview and Framework for
Internationalized Email", RFC 6530, DOI 10.17487/RFC6530,
February 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6530>.
Klensin, et al. Expires 20 June 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Core Email A/S December 2023
[RFC6531] Yao, J. and W. Mao, "SMTP Extension for Internationalized
Email", RFC 6531, DOI 10.17487/RFC6531, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6531>.
[RFC7085] Levine, J. and P. Hoffman, "Top-Level Domains That Are
Already Dotless", RFC 7085, DOI 10.17487/RFC7085, December
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7085>.
[RFC7208] Kitterman, S., "Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for
Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1", RFC 7208,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7208, April 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7208>.
[RFC7489] Kucherawy, M., Ed. and E. Zwicky, Ed., "Domain-based
Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance
(DMARC)", RFC 7489, DOI 10.17487/RFC7489, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7489>.
[RFC7672] Dukhovni, V. and W. Hardaker, "SMTP Security via
Opportunistic DNS-Based Authentication of Named Entities
(DANE) Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7672,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7672, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7672>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
[RFC8461] Margolis, D., Risher, M., Ramakrishnan, B., Brotman, A.,
and J. Jones, "SMTP MTA Strict Transport Security (MTA-
STS)", RFC 8461, DOI 10.17487/RFC8461, September 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8461>.
[RFC8551] Schaad, J., Ramsdell, B., and S. Turner, "Secure/
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0
Message Specification", RFC 8551, DOI 10.17487/RFC8551,
April 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8551>.
[RFC8617] Andersen, K., Long, B., Ed., Blank, S., Ed., and M.
Kucherawy, Ed., "The Authenticated Received Chain (ARC)
Protocol", RFC 8617, DOI 10.17487/RFC8617, July 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8617>.
Appendix A. Change Log
RFC Editor: Please remove this appendix before publication.
Klensin, et al. Expires 20 June 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Core Email A/S December 2023
A.1. Changes from draft-klensin-email-core-as-00 (2020-03-30) to draft-
ietf-emailcore-as-00
* Change of filename, metadata, and date to reflect transition to WG
document for new emailcore WG. No other substantive changes
A.2. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-00 (2020-10-06) to -01
* Added co-authors (list is in alphabetical order for the present).
* Updated references to 5321bis and 5322bis.
* Added note at top, "This version is provided as a document
management convenience to update the author list and make an un-
expired version available to the WG. There are no substantive
changes from the prior version", which should be removed for
version -02.
A.3. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-01 (2021-04-09) to -02
* Added new editors and also added some issues the emailcore group
will be dealing with.
* Added reference to RFC 6648.
A.4. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-02 (2021-08-06) to -03
* Moved discussion of address-literals (issue #1) and domain names
in EHLO (issue #19) under SMTP Provisions section
* Moved discussion of empty quoted-strings under Message Format
Provisions section
* Added text on use of addresses in TLDs (issue #50)
* Marked all authors as editors.
* Miscellaneous editorial changes.
A.5. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-03 (2022-01-31) to -04
* Added requirements for SMTP extensions (issue #40).
A.6. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-04 (2022-05-21) to -05
* Added text addressing use ofx enhanced status codes.
Klensin, et al. Expires 20 June 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Core Email A/S December 2023
* Added text addressing confidentiality and authentication (issue
#54).
A.7. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-05 (2022-10-24) to -06
* Converted source to xml2rfc v3.
* Replaced placeholder Introduction with new text.
* Updated keywords boilerplate.
* Added text on interoperability of email addresses in general and
use in HTML forms (issue #51).
* Added text stating that implementations are expected to support
MIME (issue #65).
* Added placeholders for issues #38 and #55.
* Add list of contributors in Acknowledgments.
* Added minimal Security Considerations section.
A.8. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-06 (2022-11-07) to -07
* Added text addressing use of FOR clause in Received header fields
(issue #55).
* Miscellaneous editorial changes.
A.9. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-07 (2023-03-13) to -08
* Added text addressing use of Received header fields by MUAs (issue
#85).
* Added advice against use of Percent-Encoding non-ASCII characters
in email addresses (issue #78).
* Miscellaneous editorial changes.
A.10. Changes from draft-ietf-emailcore-as-08 (2023-12-XX) to -09
* Acknowledge the existence of port 465 for submission (issue #80).
* Remove "Use of Time Zones in Date and Received Header Fields"
placeholder (issue #66).
* Miscellaneous editorial changes.
Klensin, et al. Expires 20 June 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Core Email A/S December 2023
Authors' Addresses
John C Klensin (editor)
1770 Massachusetts Ave, Ste 322
Cambridge, MA 02140
United States of America
Phone: +1 617 245 1457
Email: john-ietf@jck.com
Kenneth Murchison (editor)
Fastmail US LLC
1429 Walnut Street - Suite 1201
Philadelphia, PA 19102
United States of America
Email: murch@fastmailteam.com
E Sam (editor)
Email: winshell64@gmail.com
Klensin, et al. Expires 20 June 2024 [Page 17]
