Network Working Group Y. Shafranovich Internet-Draft SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. Intended status: Informational J. Levine Expires: December 18, 2008 P. Hoffman Domain Assurance Council M. Kucherawy Sendmail, Inc. June 16, 2008 An Extensible Format for Email Feedback Reports draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-05 Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 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 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 18, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Abstract This document defines an extensible format and MIME type that may be used by network operators to report feedback about received email to other parties. This format is intended as a machine readable replacement for various existing report formats currently used in Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 Internet email. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Format of Email Feedback Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Format of 'message/feedback-report' Content Type . . . . . . . 5 5.1. Required Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.2. Optional Fields Appearing Once . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.3. Optional Fields Appearing Multiple Times . . . . . . . . . 7 6. MIME Type Registration of message/feedback-report . . . . . . 8 7. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.1. Initial Values for the Header Names Registry . . . . . . . 10 8.2. Initial values for the "Feedback-Type" registry . . . . . 12 8.3. Initial values for the "DKIM Failure Type" registry . . . 13 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9.1. Inherited from RFC3462 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.2. Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.3. Envelope Sender Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix A. Appendix A - Sample Feedback Reports . . . . . . . . 16 A.1. Simple Report for Email Abuse without Optional Headers . . 16 A.2. Opt-Out Report without Message Body . . . . . . . . . . . 18 A.3. Full Report for Email Abuse with All Headers . . . . . . . 19 Appendix B. Status of This Document [To Be Removed Upon Publication] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 B.1. Discussion Venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 B.2. Document Repository and Public Website . . . . . . . . . . 20 B.3. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 24 Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 1. Introduction As the spam problem continues to expand and potential solutions evolve, network operators are increasingly exchanging abuse reports among themselves and other parties. However, different operators have defined their own formats, and thus the receivers of these reports are forced to write custom software to interpret each. In addition, many operators use various other report formats to provide non-abuse-related feedback about processed email. This memo seeks to define a standard extensible format and the "message/feedback-report" MIME type for these reports. This format and content type are intended to be used within the scope of the framework of the "multipart/report" content type defined in [RFC3462]. While there has been previous work in this area ([STRADS_BCP] and [ASRG_ABUSE]), none of them have yet been sucessful. It is hoped that this document will have a better fate. This format is intended primarily as an Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) for reporting email abuse but also includes support for direct feedback via end user mail clients, reports of some types of virus activity, and some similar issues. It also has the capacity to support message authentication failure reporting, in particular DKIM [RFC4871]. This document only defines the format and content type to be used for these reports. Determination of where these reports should be sent, how trust among report generators and report recipients is established, and reports related to more than one message are outside the scope of this document. It is assumed that best practices will evolve over time, and will be codified in future documents. 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 [RFC2119]. 2. Intent The reports defined in this document are intended for several purposes: o To inform ISPs about email abuse originating from or related to their networks o To inform email service providers or other primarily outbound senders that there may be issues regarding their mail. These issues include (but are not limited to) reports that the mail may Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 be considered to be "spam" by a recipient of the message. o To inform email service provides about opt-out requests o To advise providers that certify or otherwise make assertions about mail of recipient disagreement with the assertions. Please note that while the parent "multipart/report" content type defined in [RFC3462] is used for all kinds of administrative messages, this format is intended specifically for communications among providers regarding email abuse and related issues, and SHOULD NOT be used for other reports. 3. Requirements The following requirements are necessary for feedback reports (the actual standard is defined in the next sections) : o They must be both human and machine readable o A copy of the original email message (body and headers) or the message headers must be enclosed in order to allow the receiver to properly handle the report. o The machine readable section must provide ability for the report generators to share metadata with receivers, o The format must be extensible. 4. Format of Email Feedback Reports To satisfy the requirements, an email feedback report is defined as a MIME message with a top level MIME content type of "multipart/report" (as defined in [RFC3462]). The following apply: a. The "report-type" parameter of "multipart/report" type is set to "feedback-report" b. The first MIME part of the message contains a human readable description of the report and MUST be included. c. The second MIME part of the message is a machine-readable section with the content type of "message/feedback-report" (defined later on in this document) and MUST be included. This section is intended to convey metadata about the report in question that may not be readily available from the included email message itself. Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 d. The third MIME part of the message contains either a full copy of the original message with a MIME content type of "message/rfc822" (as defined in [RFC2046]) OR a copy of the headers from the original message with MIME content type of "text/rfc822-headers" (as defined in [RFC3462]). This part MUST be included (unlike [RFC3462]). While some operators may choose to modify or redact this portion for privacy or legal reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the entire original email message be included without any modification. e. Each feedback report MUST be related to only a SINGLE email message. Summary and aggregate formats are outside the scope of this specification. f. The subject line of the feedback report SHOULD be the same as the included email message and MAY include only the standard forwarding prefix used by MUAs such as "FW:". (Many smaller operators using MUAs for abuse handling rely on the subject lines for processing.) 5. Format of 'message/feedback-report' Content Type This content type provides a machine-readable section intended to let the report generator convey metadata to the report receiver. The intent of this section is to convey information which may not be obvious or may not be easily extracted from the original email message or headers. The body of this content type consists of multiple "fields" formatted according to the ABNF of [RFC2822] header "fields". This section defines the initial set of fields provided by this specification. Additional fields may be registered according to the procedure described later on in this document. Altough these fields have a syntax similar to those of mail message headers, they are semantically distinct; hence they SHOULD NOT be repeated in the header area of the message containing the report. Note that these fields represent information that the receiver is asserting about the report in question, but are not necessarily verifiable. Report receivers MUST NOT assume that these assertions are always accurate. 5.1. Required Fields The following header fields are REQUIRED and MUST only appear once: o "Feedback-Type:" - contains the type of feedback report (as defined in the corresponding IANA registry). This is intended to let report generators distinguish among different types of Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 reports. o "User-Agent:" - indicates the name and version of the software program that generated the report. The format of this field MUST follow section 14.43 of [RFC2616]. This field is for documentation only; there is no registry of user agent names or versions, and report receivers SHOULD NOT expect user agent names to belong to a known set. o "Version:" - indicates the version of specification that the report generator is using to generate the report. The version number in this specification is set to "0.1". The following header field SHOULD appear once in a DKIM failure report: o "DKIM-Failure:" - the type of DKIM verification failure that occurred; MUST be included for "dkim" failure reports and MUST NOT be included otherwise. 5.2. Optional Fields Appearing Once The following header fields are OPTIONAL and MUST NOT appear more than once: o "Original-Envelope-Id:" - envelope ID string used in the original SMTP transaction (see section 2.2.1 of [RFC3464]. o "Original-Mail-From:" - copy of the email address used in the MAIL FROM portion of the original SMTP transaction. The format of this field is defined in section 4.1.1.2 of [RFC2821]. o "Arrival-Date:" - indicates the date the original message was received by recipient system's MTA. This field MUST be formatted as per section 3.3 of [RFC2822]. o "Reporting-MTA:" - indicates the name of the MTA generating this feedback report. This field is defined in section 2.2.2 of [RFC3464], except that it is an optional field in this report. o "Source-IP:" - contains an IPv4 or IPv6 address of the MTA from which the original message was received. Addresses MUST be formatted as per section 4.1.3 of [RFC2821]. o "Incidents:" - contains an integer indicating the number of incidents this report represents. The absence of this field implies the report covers a single incident. Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 The historic field "Received-Date:" SHOULD also be accepted and interpreted identically to "Arrival-Date:". The following header fields are OPTIONAL and MAY each appear once in a DKIM failure report: o "DKIM-Canonicalized-Body:" - the canonicalized message body of a message which failed DKIM verification, base64-encoded and line- wrapped to remain inside [RFC2822] limits ("dkim" reports only). base64 encoding is defined in [RFC2045]. o "DKIM-Canonicalized-Header:" - the canonicalized message header block of a message which failed DKIM verification, base64-encoded and line-wrapped to remain inside [RFC2822] limits; ("dkim" reports only; SHOULD be present for those reports). o "DKIM-Domain:" - the domain whose private key was used to sign a message, taken from the signature's "d=" tag ("dkim" reports only). o "DKIM-Identity:" - the signing agent's identity, taken from the signature's "i=" tag ("dkim" reports only). o "DKIM-Selector:" - the selector referenced by a DKIM signature, taken from the signature's "s=" tag ("dkim" reports only). 5.3. Optional Fields Appearing Multiple Times The following set of header fields are OPTIONAL and MAY appear more than once: o "Authentication-Results:" - indicates the result of an authentication check run by the report generator. The format of this field is is defined in [AUTH-HEADER]. Report receivers should note that this field only indicates an assertion made by the report generator. o "Original-Rcpt-To:" - copy of the email address used in the RCPT TO portion of the original SMTP transaction. The format of this field is defined in section 4.1.1.3 of RFC 2821. o "Reported-Domain:" - indicates a domain name that the report generator believes to be relevant to the report. Domain format is defined in section 2.3.1 of [RFC1035]. o "Reported-URI:" - indicates a URI that the report generator believes to be relevant to the report. URI format is defined in [RFC3986]. Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 o "Removal-Recipient:" - indicates the email address to be removed from the mailing list (MUST only be used with "opt-out"). The format of this field is defined in section 3.4.1 of RFC 2822. 6. MIME Type Registration of message/feedback-report This section provides the media type registration application from [RFC4288]. To: ietf-types@iana.org Subject: Registration of media type message/feedback-report Type name: message Subtype name: feedback-report Required parameters: none Optional parameters: none Encoding considerations: "7bit" encoding is sufficient and MUST be used to maintain readability when viewed by non-MIME mail readers. Security considerations: See the "Security Considerations" of draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-04.txt. Interoperability considerations: implementors MUST ignore any fields they do not support Published specification: draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-04.txt Applications which use this media type: Abuse helpdesk software for ISPs, mail service bureaus, mail certifiers, and similar organizations Additional information: none Person and email address to contact for further information: Yakov Shafranovich Intended usage: COMMON Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 Author: Yakov Shafranovich, John Levine, Paul Hoffman Change controller: IESG 7. Extensibility Like many other formats and protocols, this format may need to be extended over time to fit the ever changing landscape of the Internet. Therefore, extensibility is provided via two IANA registries: one for feedback types and a second for header fields. The feedback type registry is to be used in conjunction with the "Feedback-Type" field above. The header name registry is intended for registration of new metadata fields to be used in the machine readable portion (part 2) of this format. Please note that version numbers do not change with new field registrations unless a new specification of this format is published. Also note that all new field registrations can only registered as OPTIONAL fields. Any new required fields REQUIRE a new version of this specification to be published. In order to encourage extensibility and interoperability of this format, implementors MUST ignore any fields they do not support. 8. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to register MIME type "message/feedback-report" using the application provided in this document and setup three registries: one for header field names, a second for "Feedback-Type" values, and a third for "DKIM-Failure" values. This section contains the templates used for registration of new entries in these registries and their initial values. New registrations to these registries MUST have approval by a Designated Expert in accordance with the Expert Review guidelines as described in [RFC5226] (the expert should be appointed by the Area Directors of the Applications Area). Any new field registered is considered OPTIONAL unless a new version of this specification is published. For the header name registry, the following MUST be provided in order to register a new header field name: 1. Name of the field being registered 2. Short description of the field 3. Whether the field can appear more than once Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 4. Which "Feedback-Type" types does this field apply to (or "any") 5. The RFC number (or Internet draft name) in which this header is registered If the header field being registered requires its own IANA registry, than the appropriate registry MUST be properly defined. For the feedback type registry, the following MUST be provided in order to register a new header field name: 1. Name of the feedback type being registered 2. Short description 3. The RFC number (or Internet draft name) in which this feedback type is registered For the DKIM failure registry, the following MUST be provided in order to register a new header field name: 1. Name of the DKIM failure type being registered 2. Short description 3. The RFC number (or Internet draft name) in which this feedback type is registered 8.1. Initial Values for the Header Names Registry The data below are populated from this document. The RFC number used for registration of these values is this document. Field Name: Authentication-Results Description: results of authentication check Multiple Appearances: Yes Related "Feedback-Type": any Field Name: DKIM-Canonicalized-Body Description: Canonicalized body, per DKIM, base64-encoded Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": dkim Field Name: DKIM-Canonicalized-Header Description: Canonicalized header block, per DKIM, base64-encoded Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": dkim Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 Field Name: DKIM-Domain Description: selector from DKIM signature ("d=" signature tag value) Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": dkim Field Name: DKIM-Failure Description: registered DKIM failure type Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": dkim Field Name: DKIM-Identity Description: DKIM signing identity ("i=" signature tag value) Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": dkim Field Name: DKIM-Selector Description: selector from DKIM signature ("s=" signature tag value) Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": dkim Field Name: Feedback-Type Description: type of feedback report Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": N/A Field Name: Original-Envelope-Id Description: envelope ID string used in the original SMTP transaction (see section 2.2.1 of [RFC3464] Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": any Field Name: Original-Mail-From Description: email address used in the MAIL FROM portion of the original SMTP transaction Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": any Field Name: Original-Rcpt-To Description: copy of the email address used in the RCPT TO portion of the original SMTP transaction Multiple Appearances: Yes Related "Feedback-Type": any Field Name: Arrival-Date Description: date the original message was received Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": any Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 Field Name: Received-Date Description: date the original message was received (historic; deprecated) Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": any Field Name: Reported-Domain Description: relevant domain name Multiple Appearances: Yes Related "Feedback-Type": any Field Name: Reported-URI Description: relevant URI Multiple Appearances: Yes Related "Feedback-Type": any Field Name: Reporting-MTA Description: MTA generating this report Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": any Field Name: Removal-Recipient Description: email address to be removed from the mailing list Multiple Appearances: Yes Related "Feedback-Type": opt-out Field Name: Source-IP Description: IPv4 or IPv6 address from which the original message was received Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": any Field Name: User-Agent Description: name and version of the program used Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": any Field Name: Version Description: version of specification used Multiple Appearances: No Related "Feedback-Type": any 8.2. Initial values for the "Feedback-Type" registry The initial names and descriptions are provided below. The RFC number used for registration of these values is this document. Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 o abuse - spam or some other kind of email abuse o dkim - a DKIM signature verification error o fraud - indicates some kind of fraud or phishing activity. o miscategorized - indicates that the content categorization applied in connection with a certification or reputation system was incorrect o not-spam - indicates that a message that was tagged or categorized as spam (such as by an ISP) is not spam o opt-out - a request to opt out from mailings from this provider. o virus - report of a virus found in the originating message o other - any other feedback that doesn't fit into other types. 8.3. Initial values for the "DKIM Failure Type" registry The initial names and descriptions are provided below. The RFC number used for registration of these values is this document. o bodyhash - The body hash in the signature and the body hash computed by the verifier did not match. o granularity - The key referenced by the signature on the message was not authorized for use by the sending user. o other - The signature verification process failed for a reason not enumerated by some other registered DKIM failure type. o revoked - The key referenced by the signature on the message has been revoked. o signature - The signature on the message did not successfully verify against the header hash and public key. o syntax - The key referenced by the signature on the message, or the signature itself, contained a syntax error. 9. Security Considerations Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 9.1. Inherited from RFC3462 All of the Security Considerations from [RFC3462] are inherited here. 9.2. Interpretation This specification describes a report format. This document does not say what a recipient of such a report must, should, or even may do with any report in the format described here. 9.3. Envelope Sender Selection When generating an ARF message, it is necessary to construct the message so as to avoid amplification attacks, deliberate or otherwise. Thus, per Section 2 of [RFC3464], the envelope sender address of the ARF message SHOULD be chosen to ensure that no delivery status reports will be issued in response to the ARF message itself, and MUST be chosen so that these reports will not generate mail loops. Whenever an SMTP transaction is used to send an ARF message, the MAIL FROM command MUST use a NULL return address, i.e. "MAIL FROM:<>". 10. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank many of the members of the email community who provided helpful comments and suggestions for this document including many of the participants in ASRG, IETF and MAAWG activities, and all of the members of the abuse-feedback-report public mailing list. 11. References 11.1. Normative References [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. [RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, November 1996. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. [RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821, April 2001. [RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April 2001. [RFC3462] Vaudreuil, G., "The Multipart/Report Content Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages", RFC 3462, January 2003. [RFC3464] Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3464, January 2003. 11.2. Informative References [ASRG_ABUSE] Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), "Abuse Reporting Standards Subgroup of the ASRG", May 2005, . [AUTH-HEADER] Kucherawy, M., "Message Header for Indicating Sender Authentication Status", draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-14 (work in progress). [RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996. [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005. [RFC4288] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005. [RFC4871] Allman, E., Callas, J., Delany, M., Libbey, M., Fenton, J., and M. Thomas, "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", RFC 4871, May 2007. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 [STRADS_BCP] Crissman, G., "Proposed Spam Reporting BCP Document", May 2005, . Appendix A. Appendix A - Sample Feedback Reports A.1. Simple Report for Email Abuse without Optional Headers Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 From: Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2005 17:40:36 EDT Subject: FW: Earn money To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=feedback-report; boundary="part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary" --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is an email abuse report for an email message received from IP 10.67.41.167 on Thu, 8 Mar 2005 14:00:00 EDT. For more information about this format please see http://www.mipassoc.org/arf/. --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary Content-Type: message/feedback-report Feedback-Type: abuse User-Agent: SomeGenerator/1.0 Version: 0.1 --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline From: Received: from mailserver.example.net (mailserver.example.net [10.67.41.167]) by example.com with ESMTP id M63d4137594e46; Thu, 08 Mar 2005 14:00:00 -0400 To: Subject: Earn money MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Message-ID: 8787KJKJ3K4J3K4J3K4J3.mail@example.net Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:31:03 -0500 Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary-- Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 A.2. Opt-Out Report without Message Body From: Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2005 17:40:36 EDT Subject: FW: Earn money To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=feedback-report; boundary="part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary" --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is an opt-out report for an email message received from IP 10.67.41.167 on Thu, 8 Mar 2005 14:00:00 EDT. For more information about this format please see http://www.mipassoc.org/arf/. --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary Content-Type: message/feedback-report Feedback-Type: opt-out User-Agent: SomeGenerator/1.0 Version: 0.1 Removal-Recipient: user@example.com --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822-headers Content-Disposition: inline From: Received: from mailserver.example.net (mailserver.example.net [10.67.41.167]) by example.com with ESMTP id M63d4137594e46; Thu, 08 Mar 2005 14:00:00 -0400 To: Subject: Earn money MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Message-ID: 8787KJKJ3K4J3K4J3K4J3.mail@example.net Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:31:03 -0500 --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary-- Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 A.3. Full Report for Email Abuse with All Headers From: Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2005 17:40:36 EDT Subject: FW: Earn money To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=feedback-report; boundary="part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary" --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is an email abuse report for an email message received from IP 10.67.41.167 on Thu, 8 Mar 2005 14:00:00 EDT. For more information about this format please see http://www.mipassoc.org/arf/. --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary Content-Type: message/feedback-report Feedback-Type: abuse User-Agent: SomeGenerator/1.0 Version: 0.1 Original-Mail-From: Original-Rcpt-To: Received-Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2005 14:00:00 EDT Source-IP: 10.67.41.167 Authentication-Results: mail.example.com smtp.mail=somespammer@example.com; spf=fail Reported-Domain: example.net Reported-Uri: http://example.net/earn_money.html Reported-Uri: mailto:user@example.com Removal-Recipient: user@example.com --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline From: Received: from mailserver.example.net (mailserver.example.net [10.67.41.167]) by example.com with ESMTP id M63d4137594e46; Thu, 08 Mar 2005 14:00:00 -0400 To: Subject: Earn money MIME-Version: 1.0 Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 Content-type: text/plain Message-ID: 8787KJKJ3K4J3K4J3K4J3.mail@example.net Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:31:03 -0500 Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary-- Appendix B. Status of This Document [To Be Removed Upon Publication] B.1. Discussion Venue Discussion about this document should be directed to the ABUSE- FEEDBACK-REPORT mailing list which is also reachable via . Of course, comments directly to the authors are always welcome (you can send them via email to and ). B.2. Document Repository and Public Website Copies of this and earlier versions including multiple formats can be found at . A public website regarding this draft and related efforts is located at . B.3. Document History Changes from draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-01-pre1 to draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-01: o Added an "Outstanding Issues" section. o Minor spelling mistakes and clarifications. o Added links to previous work and more examples. o Added three new types: "fraud" for phishing, "opt-out-list" for a single list opt out, and "other" as a catch-all. Changes from draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-00 to draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-01-pre1: Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 o Changed the introduction section to clarify specific points that are out of scope for this document o Added pointers to a public mailing list for discussion and public web page o Clarified the intent section and added some extra points to it o Added a reference to RFC 2119 and changed the document to comply o Made it clear that the requirements section) is not the one defining the standard o Clarified the main format section to make all three parts mandatory o Changed section 4f regarding subject lines to mandate that subject lines should be left intact. Removed the convention for subject lines that was defined in the previous version o Added text to the the machine readable section clarifying its intent. Also added RFC 2119 references, reorganized fields, indicated whether specific header fields can appear more than once and provided references as to how they should be formatted. o Removed "Original-Message-ID", "Authenticated-Domain:" and "Authenticated-Domain-Method" from the draft including related IANA registries. Added "Version", "User-Agent", Original-Mail- From", "Original-Rcpt-To", "Reported-Uri", "Reported-Domain" and "Authentication-Results". o Example has been updated to reflect new headers. o Added a new section on extensibility and changed the IANA section to reflect that. Changes from draft-shafranovich-abuse-report-00 to draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-00: o Name of the format and report changed to 'feedback-report' o Minor spelling corrections o Added authentication headers and registry o Added feedback-type header and registry. Changes from draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-00 to Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-01: o None significant (just a freshening) Changes from draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-01 to draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-02: o Much editorial cleanup o Added John Levine and Paul Hoffman as co-authors o Made the line lengths in Appendix A appropriate for RFCs o Switched to symbolic names for references o Reduced duplication of reference calls o Removed text that specified the type of RFC and approval type that is expected o Removed the requirement for an RFC to update the IANA registries; both are now designated expert approval only o Added two new categories to the initial values for the "Feedback- Type" registry: miscategorized and not-spam Changes from draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-02 to draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-03: o Added a bit to the Security Considerations section o Updated obsolete references o Resolved all items in the outstanding issues list and therefore removed it Changes from draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-03 to draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-04: o Added Murray Kucherawy as co-author o Added support for DKIM reporting o Cleaned up XML a lot Changes from draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-04 to draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-05: Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 o Add "Incidents" header o RFC3464 replaces RFC1894 o RFC5226 replaces RFC2434 Still to be done: o Add DKIM examples o Add ABNF specifications Authors' Addresses Yakov Shafranovich SolidMatrix Technologies, Inc. Email: ietf@shaftek.org URI: http://www.shaftek.org John Levine Domain Assurance Council PO Box 727 Trumansburg, NY 14886 Phone: +1 831 480 2300 Email: john.levine@domain-assurance.org URI: http://www.domain-assurance.org Paul Hoffman Domain Assurance Council Email: paul.hoffman@domain-assurance.org URI: http://www.domain-assurance.org Murray S. Kucherawy Sendmail, Inc. Email: msk+ietf@sendmail.com Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Format for Feedback Reports June 2008 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Shafranovich, et al. Expires December 18, 2008 [Page 24]