wdiff draft-crocker-email-arch-06.txt draft-crocker-email-arch-07.txt

SMTP D. Crocker
Internet-Draft Brandenburg InternetWorking
Intended status: Standards Track March 4, May 6, 2007
Expires: September 5, November 7, 2007

Internet Mail Architecture
draft-crocker-email-arch-06
draft-crocker-email-arch-07

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 September 5, November 7, 2007.

Abstract

Over its thirty-five year history Internet Mail has undergone
significant changes in scale and complexity, as it has become a
global infrastructure service. The first standardized architecture
for networked email specified little more than a simple split between
the user world and the transmission world. Core aspects of the
service, such as the styles of mailbox address and basic message
format, have remained remarkably constant. However today's Internet
Mail is marked by many independent operators, many different
components for providing users service to users and many others for
performing message transfer. Public discussion of the architecture has not kept
pace service often
lacks common terminology and a common frame of reference for these
components and their activities. Having a common reference model and
terminology makes a basic difference when talking about problems with
the real-world technical and operational refinements. service, changes in policy, or enhancement to the service's
functionality. This document offers an enhanced Internet Mail
architecture that targets description of the existing service. service, in
order to facilitate clearer and more efficient technical, operations
and policy discussions about email.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Service Overview Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . 3
1.2. Document Conventions Service Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Document Administration Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . 6
2. Email Responsible Actor Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. User Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7
2.2. Mail Handling Service (MHS) Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10
2.3. Administrative Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 13
3. Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 15
3.1. Mailbox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 15
3.2. Domain Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 16
3.3. Message Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 17
4. Services and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 18
4.1. Message Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 21
4.2. User-Level Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 26
4.3. MHS-Level Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 28
5. Mediators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 31
5.1. Aliasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 32
5.2. Re-Sending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 34
5.3. Mailing Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 36
5.4. Gateways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 37
5.5. Boundary Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 39
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 39
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.1. 39
8.1. Normative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.2. 39
8.2. Descriptive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 42
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 42
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 43
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 42 44

1. Introduction

Over its thirty-five year history Internet Mail has undergone
significant changes in scale and complexity, as it has become a
global infrastructure service. However the The changes have been evolutionary,
rather than revolutionary, reflecting a strong desire to preserve its
installed base of users and utility. Today, Internet Mail is marked
by many independent operators, many different components for
providing service to users and many other components for performing
message transfer.

Public collaboration on email technical, operations and policy
activities, including those responding to the challenges of email
abuse, has brought in a much wider range of participants than email's
technical community originally had. In order to do work on a large,
complex system, they need to share the same view of how it is put
together, as well as what terms to use to refer to the pieces and
their activities. Otherwise, it is difficult to know exactly what
another participant means. It is these differences in each person's
perspective that motivates this document, to describe the realities
of the current system. Internet mail is the subject of ongoing
technical, operations and policy work, and the discussions often are
hindered by different models of email service design and different
meanings for the same terms. This architecture document seeks to
facilitate clearer and more efficient technical, operations and
policy exchanges about email.

This document offers an enhanced Internet Mail architecture to
reflect the current service. In particular it:

* Documents refinements to the email model

* Clarifies functional roles for the architectural components

* Clarifies identity-related issues, across the email service

* Defines terminology for architectural components and their
interactions

1.1. Background

The first standardized architecture for networked email specified a
simple split between the user world, in the form of Mail User Agents
(MUA), and the transmission world, in the form of the Mail Handling
Service (MHS) composed of Mail Transfer Agents (MTA). The MHS is
responsible for accepting a message from one User and delivering it
to one or more others, creating a virtual MUA-to-MUA exchange
environment.

As shown in Figure 1 this defines two logical "layers" of
interoperability. One is directly between Users. The other is
between the neighboring components, along the transfer path. In
addition, there is interoperability between the layers, first when a
message is posted from the User to the MHS and later when it is
delivered from the MHS to the User.

+--------+
+---------------->| User |
| +--------+
| ^
+--------+ | +--------+ .
| User +--+--------->| User | .
+--------+ | +--------+ .
. | ^ .
. | +--------+ . .
. +-->| User | . .
. +--------+ . .
. ^ . .
. . . .
V . . .
+---+----------------+------+------+---+
| . . . . |
| +...............>+ . . |
| . . . |
| +......................>+ . |
| . . |
| +.............................>+ |
| |
| Mail Handling Service (MHS) |
+--------------------------------------+

Figure 1: Basic Internet Mail Service Model

Today, Internet Mail is marked by many independent operators, many
different components for providing users service and many other
components for performing message transfer. So

As it is not surprising
that has evolved, the operational service has sub-divided each of
these "layers" layers into more specialized modules. Core aspects of the
service, such as mailbox address addressing and message format style, have
remained remarkably constant.
However public discussion of the architecture has not kept pace with
the real-world refinements. This document offers an enhanced
Internet Mail architecture to reflect So the current service. The original distinction between
user-level concerns and transfer-level concerns is retained, but with
an elaboration to each "level" level of the
architecture that is discussed separately. architecture. The term "Internet
Mail" is used to refer to the entire collection of user and transfer
components.
components and services.

For Internet Mail the term "end-to-end" usually refers to a single
posting and the set of deliveries directly resulting from its single
transiting of the MHS. A common exception is with group dialogue
that is mediated via a mailing list, so that two postings occur, occur
before intended recipients receive an originator's message. message, as
discussed in Section 2.1.3. In fact, fact some uses of email consider the
entire email service -- including Originator and Recipient -- as a
subordinate component. For these services "end-to-end" refers to
points outside of the email service. Examples are voicemail over
email [RFC2423], [RFC3801], EDI over email [RFC1767] and facsimile over email.[ID-ffpim]

The current draft:

* Documents refinements to the email model

* Clarifies functional roles for the architectural components

* Clarifies identity-related issues, across the email service

1.1. email.
[RFC4142]

1.2. Service Overview

End-to-end Internet Mail exchange is accomplished by using a
standardized infrastructure comprising:

* An email object

* Global addressing

* An asynchronous sequence of point-to-point transfer mechanisms

* No prior arrangement between Originator and Recipient

* No prior arrangement between point-to-point transfer services,
over the open Internet

* No requirement for Originator and Recipient to be online at the
same time.

The end-to-end portion of the service is the email object, called a
message. Broadly the message, itself, is divided distinguishes between handling control
information and user for handling, versus the author's message content.

A precept to the design of mail over the open Internet is permitting
user-to-user and MTA-to-MTA interoperability to take place with no
prior, direct administrative arrangement between the independent
Administrative Management Domains (AdMD). administrative
authorities that are responsible for handling a message. That is,
all participants rely on having the core services be universally supported,
supported and accessible, either directly or through Gateways gateways that
translate between Internet Mail standards and other email
environments. Given the importance of spontaneity and serendipity in
the world of human communications, this lack of prearrangement
between the participants is a core benefit of Internet Mail and remains a
core requirement for it.

Within localized environments (Edge networks) networks at the edge of the public Internet, prior
administrative arrangement often is required and can include access
control, routing constraints and lookup service configuration. In
recent years one change to local environments is an increased
requirement for authentication or, at least, accountability. In
these cases a server performs explicit validation of the client's
identity.

1.2.

1.3. Document Conventions

In this document, references to structured fields of a message use a
two-part dotted notation. The first part cites the document that
contains the specification for the field and the second is the name
of the field. Hence <RFC2822.From> is the From field in an email
content header and <RFC2821.MailFrom> is the address in the SMTP
"Mail From" command.

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 specified in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

1.3. Document Administration

Discussion venue: Please direct discussion about this document to
the IETF-SMTP mailing list <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp>.

Changes:

Modified Protocols and Services figure, for MS, MSA and MDA.
Revised discussion

Added text to reflect these changes, particularly the
split role explain utility of having an MSA or MDA serves. architecture document.

Added recent Lemonade reference, text explaining benefit of the ADMD construct.

Added commentary on List-ID.

Moved Bounce out of MHS in figure.

Moved "generic" Identity field case-analysis text into common area
after Table 1, reserving per-role text for thin clients.

Various clarifications per-role peculiarities.

Extensive word-smithing and wordsmithing. cleanup.

2. Email Responsible Actor Roles

Internet Mail is a highly distributed service, with a variety of
actors serving different roles. These divide into 3 basic types:

* User
* Mail Handling Service (MHS)

* ADministrative Management Domain (ADMD)

Although related to a technical architecture, the focus on Actors
concerns participant responsibilities, rather than on functional functionality
of modules. Hence the labels used are different than for classic
email architecture diagrams. Actors often will be associated with
different organizations. This operational independence provides the
motivation for distinguishing among different ADMDs.

2.1. User Actors

Users are the sources and sinks of messages. They can be humans or
processes. They can have an exchange that iterates and they can
expand or contract the set of Users users participating in a set of
exchanges. In Internet Mail there are three types of user-level
Actors:

* Originators

* Recipients

* Mediators

From the User-level perspective all mail transfer activities are
performed by a monolithic Mail Handling Service (MHS), even though
the actual service can be provided by many independent organizations.
Users are customers of this unified service.

The following depicts the flow of messages among Actors. Actors:

+------------+
| |<---------------------------+
| Originator |<----------------+ |
| |<----+ | |
+-+---+----+-+ | | |
| | | | | |
| | V | | |
| | +---------+-+ | |
| | | Recipient | | |
| | +-----------+ | |
| | | |
| | +--------+ | |
| | | | | |
| V V | | |
| +-----------+ +-+-------+-+ |
| | Mediator +--->| Recipient | |
| +-----------+ +-----------+ |
| |
| +-----------------------------+ |
| | +----------+ | |
| | | | | |
V V V | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +---+-+-+---+
| Mediator +--->| Mediator +--->| Recipient |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +-----------+

Figure 2: Relationships Among User Actors

2.1.1. Originator

Also called "Author", this is the user-level participant responsible
for creating original content and requesting its transmission. The
MHS operates to send and deliver mail among Originators and
Recipients. As described below, the MHS has a "Source" role that
correlates with the user-level Author role.

2.1.2. Recipient

The Recipient is a consumer of delivered content. As described
below, the MHS has a "Dest[ination]" role that correlates with the
user-level Recipient role.

A Recipient can close the user-level communication loop by creating
and submitting a new message that replies to an Originator. An
example of an automated form of reply is the Message Disposition
Notification, which informs the Originator about how the Recipient
handled Recipient's
handling of the message. See (See Section 4.1. 4.1.)

2.1.3. Mediator

A Mediator receives, aggregates, reformulates and redistributes
messages as part of a potentially-protracted, higher-level exchange
among Users. Example uses of Mediators include group dialogue dialogue, such as
collaboration via mailing lists, and organizational message flow, as
occurs with a purchase approval process. Note that it is easy to
confuse this user-level activity with the underlying MHS transfer
exchanges. However they serve very different purposes and operate in
very different ways. Mediators are considered extensively in
Section 5.

When mail is delivered to the mailbox address a receiving mediator specified in the
RFC2821.MailFrom
RFC2821.RcptTo command, a receiving Mediator is viewed by the Mail
Handling Service MHS handles it the same way as a for any
other Recipient. When That is, the MHS only sees posting and delivery
sources and sinks and does not see (later) re-posting as a
continuation of a process. Hence when submitting messages, the
Mediator is an Originator. What is

The distinctive is that aspects of a Mediator are, therefore, above the MHS.
A Mediator preserves the Originator information of the message it
reformulates, but may make meaningful changes to the content. Hence
the MHS sees a new message, but Users receive a message that is
interpreted as primarily being from -- or, at least, initiated by --
the author of the original message. The role of a Mediator permits
distinct, active creativity, rather than being limited to the more
constrained job of merely connecting together other participants.
Hence it is really the Mediator that is responsible for the new
message.

A Mediator's task can be complex and contingent, such as by modifying
and adding content or regulating which users are allowed to
participate and when. The popular example of this role is a group
mailing list. A sequence of Mediators may even perform a series of
formal steps, such as reviewing, modifying and approving a purchase
request.

Because a Mediator originates messages, it might can also receive replies.
So a Mediator really is a full-fledged User.

Gateway: A Gateway is a particularly interesting form of Mediator.
It is a hybrid of User and Relay that interconnects heterogeneous
mail services. Its goal is to emulate a Relay, so Gateway and a detailed
discussion is
described in more detail, in Section 2.2.4.

2.2. Mail Handling Service (MHS) Actors

The Mail Handling Service (MHS) has the task of performing a single,
email-level,
end-to-end transfer on behalf of the Originator and reaching the
Recipient address(es) specified in the envelope. original RFC2821.RcptTo
commands. Mediated or protracted, iterative exchanges, such as those
used for collaboration over time, are part of the User-level service,
and are not part of this Transfer-level transfer-level Handling Service.

The following depicts the relationships among transfer participants
in Internet Mail. It shows the Source as distinct from the
Originator, and Dest[ination] as distinct from Recipient, although it
is common for each pair to be the same actor. The figure also shows
multiple Relays in the sequence. It is legal to have no separate
Relay, where Transfers typically
entail one or more Relays. However direct delivery from the Source and Dest interact directly.
to Destination is possible. For intra-
organization intra-organization mail services, it
is common to have only one Relay.

+------------+ +-----------+
| Originator | +--------+ | Recipient |
+-----+------+ ..>| Bounce | +-----------+
| . +--------+ ^
| Mail Handling Service (MHS) . ^ |
/+=================================================+\
|| | . | Mail Handling | ||
|| | . | Service (MHS) | ||
V . | |
+---------+ +--------+ +----+----+ . | +----+----+
| | |<------------+ . | | Source +...>| Bounce |
| Source +.... +-<-------------+ Dest |
| | | |<---+ | |
+----+----+ +--------+ | ^ +---------+
| | ^
| +-------------+-----------------+ |
V | |
+---------+ +----+----+ +----+----+ | |
+-------+-+ +-+-------+ +-+--+----+
| Relay +-->.......-->| +-->...-->| Relay +-->| +------>| Relay |
+---------+ +----+----+ +---------+
|
V
+---------+
| Gateway +-->...
+---------+

Figure 3: Relationships Among MHS Actors

2.2.1. Source

The Source role is responsible for ensuring that a message is valid
for posting and then submitting it to a Relay. Validity includes
conformance with Internet Mail standards, as well as with local
operational policies. The Source can simply review the message for
conformance and reject it if there are errors, or it can create some
or all of the necessary information.

The Source operates with dual "allegiance". It serves the Originator
and often it is the same entity. However its role in assuring
validity means that it MUST also represent the local operator of the
MHS, that is, the local ADministrative Management Domain (ADMD).

The Source also has the responsibility for any post-submission,
Originator-related administrative tasks associated with message
transmission and delivery. Notably this pertains to error and
delivery notices. Hence Source is best held accountable for the
message content, even when they did not create any or most of it.

2.2.2. Bounce Handler

The Bounce Handler processes service notifications that are generated
by the MHS, as a result of its efforts to transfer or deliver the
message. Notices can be about failures or completions and are sent
to an address that is specified by the Source. This Bounce handling
address (also known as a Return address) might have no visible
characteristics in common with the address of the Originator or
Source.

NOTE:

The choice of the label "Bounce" is unfortunate, due to its
negative implication. Currently, this implication and narrow focus. However it is the most
popular term for the field. address.

2.2.3. Relay

A mail Relay performs email transfer-service routing and store-and-
forward. It adds envelope-level handling information and then
(re-)transmits
forward by (re-)transmitting the message on towards its Recipient(s).
A Relay can add information to the envelope, such as with trace
information. However it does not modify existing envelope
information or the message content semantics. It can modify message
content syntax, such as a change from text to binary transfer-encoding transfer-
encoding form, only as required to meet the capabilities of the next
hop in the MHS.

A set of Relays composes a Mail Handling Service (MHS) network. This
is above any underlying packet-switching network that they might be
using and below any gateways or other user-level Mediators.

In other words, interesting email scenarios can involve three
distinct architectural layers of store-and-forward service:

* User Mediators

* MHS Relays

* Packet Switches

with the bottom-most usually being the Internet's IP service. The
most basic email scenarios involve Relays and Switches.

Aborting a message transfer results in having the Relay become an
Originator and send an error message to the Bounce address. (The The
potential for looping is avoided by having this message, itself,
contain no Bounce address.) address.

2.2.4. Gateway

A Gateway is a hybrid form of User and Relay that interconnects
heterogeneous mail services. Its purpose is simply to emulate a
Relay and the closer it comes to this, the better. However it
operates at the User level, because it MUST be able to modify message
content.

Differences between mail services can be as small as minor syntax
variations, but usually encompass significant, semantic distinctions.
One difference could have the concept of an email address be a
hierarchical, machine-specific address address, versus have having it be a flat,
global name space. Another difference could be between text-only
content, versus multi-media. Hence the Relay function in a Gateway
offers significant design challenges, to make the result be as
seamless as possible. The more most significant challenge is in ensuring
the user-to-user functionality that matches syntax and semantics of
independent email standards suites.

The basic test of a Gateway's adequacy is, of course, whether an
Originator on one side of a Gateway can send a useful message to a
Recipient on the other side, without requiring changes to any of the
components in the Originator's or Recipient's mail services, other
than adding the Gateway. To each of these otherwise independent
services, the Gateway will appear to be a "native" participant.
However the ultimate test of a Gateway's adequacy is whether the
Originator and Recipient can sustain a dialogue. In particular can a
Recipient's MUA automatically formulate a valid Reply that will reach
the initial Originator?

2.3. Administrative Actors

Actors often will are associated with different organizations, each
with its own administrative authority. This operational
independence, coupled with the need for interaction between groups,
provides the motivation for distinguishing among ADministrative
Management Domains (ADMD). Each ADMD can have vastly different
operating policies and trust-based decision-making. An obvious
example is the distinction between mail that is exchanged within a
single organization, versus mail that is exchanged between
independent organizations. The rules for handling these two types of
traffic tend to be quite different. That difference requires
defining the boundaries of each, and this requires the ADMD
construct.

Operation of Internet Mail services is apportioned to different
providers (or operators). Each can be an independent ADministrative
Management Domain (ADMD). ADMD. This
independence of administrative decision-making defines boundaries
that distinguish different portions of the Internet Mail service.
Examples include an end-user operating their desktop client, a
department operating a local Relay, an IT department operating an
enterprise Relay and an ISP operating a public shared email service.
These can be configured into many combinations of administrative and
operational relationships, with each ADMD potentially having a
complex arrangement of functional components. Figure 4 depicts the
relationships among ADMDs. Perhaps
the most salient aspect The benefit of an having the ADMD construct
is the differential trust to facilitate discussions and designs that
determines its policies for activities within the ADMD, versus those
involving interactions with other ADMDs. need to distinguish
between "internal" issues and "external" ones.

The architectural impact of needing to have boundaries between ADMD's
is discussed in [Tussle]. Most significant is that the entities
communicating across ADMD boundaries will typically have an added
burden to enforce organizational policies concerning "external"
communications. At a more mundane level, the basis for routing mail
between ADMDs is often an issue.

Basic types of ADMDs include: include --

Edge: Independent transfer services, in networks at the edge of
the open Internet Mail service.

User: End-user services. This might be subsumed under the Edge
service, such as is common for web-based email access.

Transit: These are Mail Service Providers (MSP) offering value-
added capabilities for Edge ADMDs, such as aggregation and
filtering.

Note that Transit services are quite different from packet-level
transit
switching operation. Whereas end-to-end packet transfers usually go
through intermediate routers, email exchange across the open Internet
is often directly between the Boundary MTAs of Edge ADMDs, at the
email level.

+-------+ +------+ +-------+ +-------+
| ADMD1 | | ADMD3 | | ADMD4 |
| ----- | | ----- | | ----- |
| | +---------------------->| | | |
| User | | |-Edge--+--->|-User |
| | | | +---------+ +--->| | | |
| V | | | +-------+ +-------+
| Edge--+---+ |
| ADMD2 | | +---------+ | +-------+ +-------+
| Edge--+---+ | ADMD2 | | ----- | | -----
| | | | | |
+--->|-Transit-+---+
+-------+ +----|-Transit-+---+
| |
+---------+

Figure 4: ADministrative Management Domains (ADMD) Example

Edge networks can use proprietary email standards internally.
However the distinction between Transit network and Edge network
transfer services is primarily significant because it highlights the
need for concern over interaction and protection between independent
administrations. In particular this distinction calls for additional
care in assessing transitions of responsibility, as well as the
accountability and authorization relationships among participants in
email transfer.

The interactions between functional components within an ADMD are
subject to the policies of that domain. Policies can cover such
things as reliability, access control, accountability and even
content evaluation and modification. They can be implemented in
different functional components, according to the needs of the ADMD.
For example see [ID-spamops].

User, Edge and Transit services can be offered by providers that
operate component services or sets of services. Further it is
possible for one ADMD to host services for other ADMDs.

Common ADMD examples are: are --

Enterprise Service Providers:

Operating an organization's internal data and/or mail services.

Internet Service Providers:

Operating underlying data communication services that, in turn,
are used by one or more Relays and Users. It is not
necessarily their job to perform email functions, but they can,
instead, provide an environment in which those functions can be
performed.

Mail Service Providers:

Operating email services, such as for end-users, or mailing
lists.

Operational pragmatics often dictate that providers be involved in
detailed administration and enforcement issues, to help ensure the
health of the overall Internet Mail Service. This can include
operators of lower-level packet services.

3. Identities

Internet Mail uses three forms of identity. The most common is the
end-point mailbox address <addr-spec>. [RFC2822] Also see the
related usage for <address> and <mailbox> in [RFC2821]. The other
two forms of email identity are the identity: mailbox, domain name <domain> Section 3.2 and message identifier <msg-id> [RFC2822].
message-id. Each is required to be globally unique.

3.1. Mailbox

"A mailbox sends and receives mail. It is a conceptual entity
which does not necessarily pertain to file storage." [RFC2822]

A mailbox is specified as an Internet Mail address <addr-spec>. It
has two distinct parts, divided by an at-sign ("@"). The right-hand
side is a globally interpreted domain name that is part of an Common
Operating Group. ADMD.
Domain Names are discussed in Section 3.2. Formal Internet Mail
addressing syntax can support source routes, to indicate the path
through which a message should be sent. Although legal, the use of
source routes is not part of the modern Internet Mail service and it
is ignored in the rest of this document.

The portion to the left of the at-sign contains a string that is
globally opaque and is called the <local-part>. It is to be
interpreted only by the entity specified in by the address's right-hand
side.
side domain name. All other entities MUST treat the local-part as a
uninterpreted literal string and MUST preserve all of its original
details. As such its public distribution is equivalent to sending a
Web browser "cookie" that is only interpreted upon being returned to
its originator.

3.1.1. Global Standards for Local-Part

It is common for sites to have local structuring conventions for the
left-hand side (local-part) <local-part> of an addr-spec. <addr-spec>. This permits sub-
addressing, such as for distinguishing different discussion groups
used by the same participant. However it is worth stressing that
these conventions are strictly private to the user's organization and
MUST not be interpreted by any domain except the one listed in the right-
hand
right-hand side of the addr-spec, and those specialized services
conforming to standardized conventions, as noted in the next
paragraph.

A small class

There are a few types of addresses has that have an elaboration on basic
email addressing, with a standardized, global schema for the local-part. local-
part. These are conventions between originating end-systems and
Recipient Gateways, and they are invisible to the public email
transfer infrastructure. When an Originator is explicitly sending
via a Gateway out of the Internet, there are coding conventions for
the local-part, so that the Originator can formulate instructions for
the Gateway. Standardized examples of this are the telephone
numbering formats for VPIM [RFC2421], [RFC3801], such as
"+16137637582@vpim.example.com", and iFax [RFC2304], [RFC3192], such as
"FAX=+12027653000/T33S=1387@ifax.example.com".

3.1.2. Scope of Email Address Use

Email addresses are being used far beyond their original email
transfer and delivery role. In practical terms, email strings have
become a common form of user identity on the Internet. What is
essential, then, is to be clear about the nature and role of an
identity string in a particular context and to be clear about the
entity responsible for setting that string.

3.2. Domain Names

A domain name is a global reference to an Internet resource, such as
a host, a service or a network. A domain name usually maps to one or
more IP Addresses. Conceptually the name might encompass an entire
organization, or a collection of machines integrated into a homogeneous
service, or only a single machine. A domain name can be administered
to refer to individual users, but this is not common practice. The
name is structured as a hierarchical sequence of sub-
names, sub-names, separated
by dots ("."). ("."), with the top of the hierarchy being on the right-end
of the sequence. Domain names are defined and operated through the
Domain Name Service (DNS) [RFC1034], [RFC1035], [RFC2181].

When not part of a mailbox address, a domain name is used in Internet
Mail to refer to the ADMD or the host that took action upon the
message, such as providing the administrative scope for a message
identifier, or performing transfer processing.

3.3. Message Identifier

There are two standardized tags, for identifying messages.

Message-ID: messages: Message-ID
and ENVID.

3.3.1. Message-ID

The Message-ID is a user-level tag, primarily used for threading and elimination of duplicates and is specified in
for eliminating duplicates. [RFC2822]. It is associated with the RFC2822.From,
RFC2822.From field, although any actor within the originating ADMD
might assign it. The recipient's ADMD is the intended consumer of
the Message-ID, although any actor along the
transmission transfer path might use
it. Internet Mail standards provide for a single Message-ID; however
more than one is sometimes assigned.

Like a mailbox address, a Message-ID has two distinct parts, divided
by an at-sign ("@"). The right-hand side is globally interpreted and
specifies the ADMD or host assigning the identifier. The left-hand
side contains a string that is globally opaque and serves to uniquely
identify the message within the domain referenced on the right-hand
side. The duration of uniqueness for the message identifier is
undefined.

When a message is revised in any way, the question of whether to
assign a new Message-ID requires a subjective assessment, deciding
whether the editorial content has been changed enough to constitute a
new message. [RFC2822] says "a message identifier pertains to
exactly one instantiation of a particular message; subsequent
revisions to the message each receive new message identifiers."
However real-world experience dictates some flexibility. An
impossible test is whether the recipient will consider the new
message to be equivalent to the old. For most components of Internet
Mail, there is no way to predict a specific recipient's preferences
on this matter. Both creating and failing to create a new Message-ID
have their downsides.

The best that can be offered, here, are some guidelines and examples:

o If a message is changed only in terms of form, such as
character-encoding, character-
encoding, it clearly is still the same message.

o If a message has minor additions to the content, such as a mailing
list tag at the beginning of the RFC2822.Subject header field, or
some mailing list administrative information added to the end of
the primary body-part's text, then it probably is still the same
message.

o If a message has viruses deleted from it, it probably is still the
same message.

o If a message has offensive words deleted from it, then some
recipients will consider it the same message, but some will not.

o If a message is translated into a different language, then some
recipients will consider it the same message, but some will not.

The absence of objective, precise criteria for Message-ID re-
generation, along with the absence of strong protection associated
with the string, means that the presence of an ID can permit an
assessment that is marginally better than a heuristic, but the ID
certainly has no value on its own for strict formal reference or
comparison. Hence it is not appropriate to use the Message-ID for
any process that might be called "security".

ENVID:

3.3.2. ENVID

The ENVID (envelope identifier) is an envelope-level tag, a tag that is primarily for use
within Delivery Status Notifications, Notifications (DSN), so that the Bounce
Address (RFC2821.MailFrom) recipient can correlate the DSN with a
particular message. [RFC3461] The ENVID is therefore used from one
message posting, until the directly-resulting message deliveries. It
does not survive re-postings [RFC3461]. re-postings.

The format of an ENVID is free-form. Although its creator might
choose to impose structure on the string, none is imposed by Internet
standards. By implication, the scope of the string is defined by the
domain name of the Bounce Address.

4. Services and Standards

The Internet's Mail

Internet Mail's architecture distinguishes among six different types
of functional components, arranged to support a store-and-
forward store-and-forward
service architecture:

* Message

* Mail User Agent (MUA)

* Message Submission Agent (MSA)

* Message Transfer Agent (MTA)

* Message Delivery Agent (MDA)

* Message Store (MS)

This section describes each functional component for Internet Mail,
and the standards-based protocols that are associated with their
operation.

Software implementations of these architectural components often
compress them, such as having the same software do MSA, MTA and MDA
functions. However the requirements for each of these components of
the service are becoming more extensive. So their separation is
increasingly common.

NOTE:

A discussion about any interesting system architecture is often
complicated by confusion between architecture versus
implementation. An architecture defines the conceptual functions
of a service, divided into discrete conceptual modules. An
implementation of that architecture can combine or separate
architectural components, as needed for a particular operational
environment. It is important not to confuse the engineering
decisions that are made to implement a product, with the
architectural abstractions used to define conceptual functions.

The following figure shows function modules and the standardized
protocols used between them. Additional protocols and configurations
are possible. Boxes defined by asterisks (*) represent functions
that often are distributed among two or more systems.

+------+ +---------+ +-------+
............+ oMUA |...................................| |..............................| Disp |
. +--+-+-+ +-------+
. local,imap}| |{smtp,submission ^
. | | +---------+ |
. ******* imap}| | ^ | .......................| Bounces | |
. * oMS *<-----+ | {smtp,submission | . *******local} | +---------+ |
. ******* | . ***************** ^ |
. +------V-----*------------+ *MHS +------V-.---*------------+ * | |
. MSA | +------+ +-------+ * +------+ | * +---------+ | |
. | | oMSA +---O-->| +--O-->| hMSA | |..*......| Bounces | * | |
. | +------+ +-------+ * +--+---+ | * +---------+ | |
. +------------*------+-----+ * ^ |
. MSA |
/+==========+\ * V {smtp * | |
/+==========+\
|| MESSAGE || * +------+ * /+===+===+\ |
|| MESSAGE ||
||----------|| MHS * | MTA | * || dsn || |
||----------|| * +--+---+ * \+=======+/ |
|| Envelope || * . {smtp +--+---+ * ^ ^ \+=======+/ |
|| SMTP || * V {smtp * | | ^ ^ |
|| RFC2822 || * +------+ * | | /+==+==+\
|| Content || * | MTA +----*---------+ +----*-----+ | || mdn ||
|| RFC2822 || * +--+---+ * | \+=====+/
|| MIME || * smtp}| {local * | |
\+==========+/ MDA * | {lmtp * | |
. +------------+------V-----+ * | |
. | +------+ * +------+ | * | |
. | | | * | | +--*-------------+ +--*---------+ |
. | | rMDA |<--O---+ hMDA | | * |
. | | | * | | |<-*-----------+ |<-*-------+ |
. | +-+----+ * +------+ | * | |
. +---+--+-----*------------+ * | |
. | | ***************** | |
. pop} +--+ +-+ +---+ | |
. imap} | | {local | |
. ****************V******* ******************V******** | |
. * | +------+ *rMS * rMS /+===+===+\ |
. * | | srMS | * || sieve || |
. * V +----+-+ +--+-+-+ * \+=======+/ |
. * +------+ pop}| pop} | | * ^ |
. * | urMS |<-----+ |<-------+ | * | |
. * +--+---+ imap} | * | |
. ************************ | |
. | | *************************** | |
. local} | | {pop, | |
. | local}| +------+ | {imap |{pop,imap | |
. +->| |<-+ |<------+ | |
...........>| rMUA +-------------------------------+ +---------------------------+ |
| +----------------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------+
+------+

Figure 5: Protocols and Services

4.1. Message Data

The purpose of the Mail Handling Service (MHS) is to exchange a
message object among participants participants. , [RFC2822] [RFC0822]. [RFC0822] Hence all of
its underlying mechanisms are merely in the service of getting that
message from its Originator to its Recipients. A message can be
explicitly labeled as to its nature [RFC3458]. nature. [RFC3458]

A message comprises a transit handling envelope and the end-user
message content. The envelope contains handling information used by
the MHS, or generated by it. The content is divided into a
structured header and the body. The body may be unstructured simple
lines of text, or it may be a MIME tree of multi-media subordinate
objects, called body-parts, or attachments. [RFC2045], [RFC2046],
[RFC2047], [RFC4288], [RFC4289], [RFC2049].

In addition, Internet Mail has some a few conventions for special control
data:

Delivery Status Notification (DSN):

A Delivery Status Notification (DSN) is a message that can be
generated by the MHS (MSA, MTA or MDA) and sent to the
RFC2821.MailFrom address. The mailbox for this is shown as
Bounces in Figure 5. It provides information about message
transit, such as transmission errors or successful delivery.
[RFC3461]

Message Disposition Notification (MDN):

A Message Disposition Notification (MDN) is a message that can be
generated by an rMUA and is sent to the
Disposition-Notification-To address(es). The mailbox for this is
shown as Disp in Figure 5. It
provides information about user-
level, user-level, Recipient-side message
processing, such as indicating that the message has been
displayed [RFC3798] or the form of content that can be
supported. [RFC3297] It can be generated by an rMUA and is
sent to the Disposition-Notification-To address(es). The
mailbox for this is shown as Disp in Figure 5. It

Message Filtering (SIEVE):

SIEVE is a scripting language that permits specifying
conditions for differential handling of mail, typically at the
time of
delivery [RFC3028]. delivery. [RFC3028] It can be conveyed in a variety of
ways, as a MIME part. Figure 5 shows a Sieve specification
going from the rMUA to the MDA. However filtering can be done
at many different points along the transit path and any one or
more of them might be subject to Sieve directives, especially
within a single ADMD. Hence the Figure shows only one
relationship, for (relative) simplicity.

4.1.1. Envelope

Information that is directly used by, or produced by, the MHS is
called the "envelope". It controls and records handling activities
by the transfer service. Internet Mail has a fragmented framework
for handling this "handling" information. The envelope exists partly
in the transfer protocol SMTP [RFC2821] and partly in the message
object [RFC2822]. The SMTP specification uses the term to refer only
to the transfer-protocol information.

NOTE:

Due to the frequent use of the term "envelope" to refer only to
SMTP constructs, there has been some call for using a different
term, to label the larger set of information defined here. So
far, no alternative term has developed any community support.

Direct envelope addressing information, as well as optional transfer
directives, are carried within the SMTP control channel. Other
envelope information, such as trace records, is carried within the
message object header fields. Upon delivery, some SMTP-level
envelope information is typically encoded within additional message
object header fields, such as Return-Path. [RFC2821],[RFC2822]

4.1.2. Header Fields

Header fields are attribute name/value pairs covering an extensible
range of email service, user content and user transaction meta-
information. The core set of header fields is defined in [RFC2822],
[RFC0822]. It is common to extend this set, for different
applications. Procedures for registering header fields are defined
in [RFC4021]. An extensive set of existing header field
registrations is provided in [RFC3864].

One danger with placing additional information in header fields is
that Gateways often alter or delete them.

4.1.3. Body

The body of a message might simply be lines of ASCII text or it might
be hierarchically structured into a composition of multi-media body-
part attachments, using MIME MIME. [RFC2045], [RFC2046], [RFC2047],
[RFC2048], and [RFC2049].
[RFC4288], [RFC2049] MIME structures each body-part into a recursive
set of MIME header field meta-data and MIME Content sections.

4.1.4. Identity References in a Message

For a message in transit, the core uses of identity references identifiers combine into:

Layered Identities

4.2. User-Level Services

Interactions at the user level entail protocol exchanges, distinct
from those that occur at lower layers of the Internet Mail
architecture, which is above the Internet Transport layer. Because
the motivation for email, and much of its use, is for interaction
among humans, the nature and details of these protocol exchanges
often are determined by the needs of human and group communication.
In terms of efforts to specify behaviors, one effect of this is to
require subjective guidelines, rather than strict rules, for some
aspects of system behavior. Mailing Lists provide particularly
salient examples of this.

4.2.1. Mail User Agent (MUA)

A Mail User Agent (MUA) works on behalf of end-users and end-user
applications. It is their "representative" within the email service.

The Origination-side MUA (oMUA) creates a message and performs
initial "submission" into the transfer infrastructure, via a Mail
Submission Agent (MSA). It can also perform any creation- and
posting-time archival in its Message Store (oMS). An MUA's oMS will
typically include a folder for messages under development (Drafts), a
folder for messages waiting to be sent (Queued or Unsent) and a
folder for messages that have been successfully posted for
transmission (Sent).

The Recipient-side MUA (rMUA) works on behalf of the end-user
Recipient to process received mail. This includes generating user-
level return control messages, displaying and disposing of the
received message, and closing or expanding the user communication
loop, by initiating replies and forwarding new messages.

NOTE: Although not shown in Figure 5, an MUA can, itself, have a
distributed implementation, such as a "thin" user interface module
on a limited end-user device, with the bulk of the MUA
functionality operated remotely on a more capable server. An
example of such an architecture might use IMAP [RFC3501] for most
of the interactions between an MUA client and an MUA server. A
standardized approach for such scenarios is defined by [RFC4550].

A Mediator is special class of MUA. It performs message re-posting,
as discussed in Section 2.1.

Identity common address-related fields relevant to the MUA include: are:

RFC2822.From

Set by: Originator

Names and addresses for author(s) of the message content are
listed in the From field field.

RFC2822.Reply-To

Set by: Originator

If a message Recipient sends a reply message that would otherwise
use the RFC2822.From field address(es) that are contained in the
original message, then they are instead to use the address(es) in
the RFC2822.Reply-To field. In other words this field is a direct
override of the From field, for responses from Recipients.

RFC2822.Sender
Set by: Source

This specifies the address responsible for submitting the message
into the transfer service. For efficiency this field can be
omitted if it contains the same address as RFC2822.From. However
this does not mean there is no Sender specified. Rather it means
that that header field is virtual and that the address in the From
field MUST be used.

Specification of the error return addresses -- the "Bounce"
address, contained in RFC2821.MailFrom -- is made by the
RFC2822.Sender. Typically the Bounce address is the same as the
Sender address. However some usage scenarios require it to be
different.

RFC2822.To, RFC2822.CC

Set by: Originator

These specify MUA Recipient addresses. The However some or all of the
addresses in the these fields might not be present in the
RFC2821.RcptTo command. commands, due to handling process that might
transfer from the former to the latter.

The distinction between To and CC is subjective. Generally a To
addressee is considered primary and is expected to take action on
the message. A CC addressee typically receives a copy only for
their information.

RFC2822.BCC

Set by: Originator

A message might be copied to an addressee whose participation is
not to be disclosed to the RFC2822.To or RFC2822.CC Recipients
and, usually, not to the other BCC Recipients. The BCC header
field indicates a message copy to such a Recipient.

Typically, the field lists no addresses or only lists the address
of the Recipient receiving this copy. An MUA will typically make
separate postings for TO and CC Recipients, versus BCC Recipients.
The former will see no indication that any BCCs were sent, whereas
the latter have a BCC field present. It might be empty, contain a
comment, or contain one or more BCC addresses, depending upon the
preferences of the Originator.

RFC2821.HELO/.EHLO

Set by: Source

The MSA can specify its hosting domain identity for the SMTP HELO
or EHLO command operation.

RFC2821.MailFrom

Set by: Source

This is an end-to-end string that specifies an email address for
receiving return control information, such as "bounces". The name
of this field is misleading, because it is not required to specify
either the author or the agent responsible for submitting the
message. Rather, the agent responsible for submission specifies
the RFC2821.MailFrom address. Ultimately the simple basis for
deciding what address needs to be in the RFC2821.MailFrom is to
determine what address needs to be informed about transmission-
level problems (and, possibly, successes.)

RFC2821.RcptTo

Set by: Originator

This specifies the MUA mailbox address of a recipient. The string
might not be visible in the message content header. For example,
the message destination address header fields, such as RFC2822.To,
might specify a mailing list mailbox, while the RFC2821.RcptTo
address specifies a member of that list.

RFC2821.Received

Set by: Source, Relay, Mediator, Dest

This indicates trace information, including originating host,
relays, Mediators, and MSA host domain names and/or IP Addresses.

RFC2821.Return-Path

Set by: Source

The MDA records the RFC2821.MailFrom address into the
RFC2822.Return-Path field.

RFC2919.List-Id

Set by: Mediator Originator

This provides a globally unique mailing list naming framework that
is independent of particular hosts. [RFC2919]

The identifier is in the form of a domain name; however the string
usually is constructed by combining the two parts of an email
address and the result rarely is a true domain name, listed in the
domain name service -- although it can be.

RFC2369.List-*

Set by: Mediator Originator

[RFC2369] defines a collection of message header fields for use by
mailing lists. In effect they supply list-specific parameters for
common mailing list user operations. The identifiers for these
operations are for the list, itself, and the user-as-subscriber.
[RFC2369]

4.2. User-Level Services

4.2.1. Mail User Agent (MUA)

A Mail User Agent (MUA) works on behalf of end-users and end-user
applications. It is their "representative" within the email service.

A Mediator is special class of MUA. It performs message re-posting,
as discussed in Section 2.1.

Identity fields relevant to a typical end-user MUA include:

RFC2822.From

RFC2822.Reply-To

RFC2822.Sender

RFC2822.To, RFC2822.CC

RFC2822.BCC

4.2.2. Message Store (MS)

An MUA can employ a long-term Message Store (MS). Figure 5 depicts
an Origination-side Ms (oMS) and a Recipient-side MS (rMS). There is
a rich set of choices for configuring a store, because any MS may
comprise a distributed set of component stores. In Figure 5, the rMS
demonstrates this by showing an rMS that is located on a remote
server (srMS) and an rMS that is on the same machine as the MUA
(urMS). The relationship between two message stores, themselves, can
vary.

The

As discussed in [RFC1733] the operational relationship among MSs can be:
be --
Online:

Only a remote MS is used, with messages being accessible only
when the MUA is attached to the MS, and the MUA repeatedly
fetches all or part of a message, from one session to the next.

Offline:

The MS is local to the user, and messages are completely moved
from any remote store, rather than (also) being retained there.

Disconnected:

An rMS and a uMS are kept synchronized, for all or part of
their contents, while there is a connection between them.
While they are disconnected, mail can continue to arrive at the
rMS and the user may continue to make changes to the uMS. Upon reconnections,
reconnection, the two stores are re-synchronized.

4.3. MHS-Level Services

4.3.1. Mail Submission Agent (MSA)

A Mail Submission Agent (MSA) accepts the message submission from the
oMUA and enforces the policies of the hosting ADMD and the
requirements of Internet standards. An MSA represents an unusual
functional dichotomy. A portion of its task is to represent MUA
(uMSA) interests during message posting, to facilitate posting
success, and another portion is to represent MHS (hMSA) interests.
This is best modeled, as shown in Figure 5, with two sub-components,
one for the oMUA (oMSA) and one for the MHS (hMSA)

The hMSA's function is to take transit responsibility for a message
that conforms to the relevant Internet standards and to local site
policies. It rejects messages that are not in conformance. The
oMSA's is to perform final message preparation for submission and to
effect the transfer of responsibility to the MHS, via the hMSA. The
amount of preparation will depend upon the local implementations.
Examples of oMSA tasks could be to add header fields, such as Date:
and Message-ID, to modify portions of the message from local
notations to Internet standards, such as expanding an address to its
formal RFC2822 representation.

Historically, standards-based MUA/MSA interactions have used SMTP
[RFC2821]. A recent alternative is SUBMISSION [RFC2476]. [RFC4409]. Although
SUBMISSION derives from SMTP, it uses a separate TCP port and imposes
distinct requirements, such as access authorization.

Identities relevant to the MSA include:

RFC2821.HELO/.EHLO

Set by: Source

The MSA can specify its hosting domain identity for the SMTP HELO
or EHLO command operation.

RFC2821.MailFrom

Set by: Mediator or Originator Source

RFC2821.MailFrom is to
determine what address needs to be informed about transmission-
level problems (and, possibly, successes.)

RFC2821.RcptTo

Set by: Originator

RFC2821.RcptTo
address specifies a member of that list.

RFC2821.Received

Set by: Originator Source

An MSA can record a Received header field, to indicate initial
submission trace information, including originating host and MSA
host domain names and/or IP Addresses.

4.3.2. Mail Transfer Agent (MTA)

A Mail Transfer Agent (MTA) relays mail for one application-level
"hop". It is like a packet-switch or IP router in that its job is to
make routing assessments and to move the message closer to the
Recipient(s). Relaying is performed by a sequence of MTAs, until the
message reaches its a destination MDA(s). MDA. Hence an MTA implements both
client and server MTA functionality. It does not make changes to
addresses in the envelope or reformulate the editorial content.
Hence a change in data form, such as to the MIME Content-Transfer-
Encoding, is within the purview of an MTA, whereas removal or
replacement of body content is not. Also it can add trace
information. Of course email objects are typically much larger than
the payload of a packet or datagram, and the end-to-end latencies are
typically much higher.

Internet Mail primarily uses SMTP [RFC2821], [RFC0821] to effect
point-to-point transfers between peer MTAs. Other transfer
mechanisms include Batch SMTP [RFC2442] and ODMR [RFC2645]. As with
most network layer mechanisms, Internet Mail's SMTP supports a basic
level of reliability, by virtue of providing for retransmission after
a temporary transfer failure. Contrary to typical packet switches
(and Instant Messaging services) Internet Mail MTAs typically store
messages in a manner that allows recovery across service
interruptions, such as host system shutdown. However the degree of
such robustness and persistence by an MTA can be highly variable.

The primary "routing" mechanism for Internet Mail is the DNS MX
record [RFC1035], which specifies a host through which the queried
domain can be reached. This presumes a public -- or at least a
common -- backbone that permits any attached host to connect to any
other.

Identities relevant to the MTA include:

RFC2821.HELO/.EHLO

Set by: Relay

The MTA can specify its hosting domain identity for the SMTP HELO
or EHLO command. This is the only standardized way of identifying
the agent responsible for operation of the Relay, during the
transfer operation.

RFC2821.MailFrom

Set by: Originator or Mediator Source

This is an MHS end-to-end string that specifies an email address
for receiving return control Bounce, such as delivery
confirmations and error notices. The protocol name of this field
is misleading, because it is not required to specify either the
author or the agent responsible for submitting the message.
Rather the agent responsible for submission specifies the MailFrom
address. Ultimately the simple basis for deciding what address
needs to be in the

RFC2821.MailFrom is to determine what address
needs to be informed about transmission-level problems (and,
possibly, successes.)

RFC2821.RcptTo

Set by: Originator

This specifies the MUA mailbox address of a Recipient. The string
might not be visible in the message content header. For example
the message destination address header fields, such as RFC2822.To,
might specify a mailing list address, while the

RFC2821.RcptTo
address specifies a member of that list.

RFC2822.Received

Set by: Relay

An MTA can record a Received header field, to indicate trace
information, including source host and receiving host domain names
and/or IP Addresses. Server

4.3.3. Mail Delivery Agent (MDA)

A Mail Delivery Agent (MDA) delivers email to the Recipient's
mailbox. It can provide distinctive, address-based functionality,
made possible by its detailed knowledge of the properties of the
destination address. This knowledge might also be present elsewhere
in the Recipient's ADMD, such as at an organizational border
(Boundary) Relay. However it is required for the MDA, if only
because the MDA must know where to deliver the message.

As with an MSA, an MDA serves two roles, as depicted in Figure 5.
Formal transfer of responsibility, called "delivery" is effected
between the two components that embody these roles. The MHS portion
(hMDA) primarily functions as a server SMTP engine. A common
additional role is to re-direct the message to an alternative
address, as specified by the recipient addressee's preferences. The
job of the recipient portion of the MDA (rMDA) is to perform any
delivery-actions are desired by the recipient.

Using Internet protocols, delivery can be effected by a variety of
standard protocols. When coupled with an internal local mechanism,
SMTP [RFC2821] and LMTP [RFC2033] permit "push" delivery to the
Recipient system, at the initiative of the upstream email service.
POP [RFC1939] and IMAP [RFC3501] are used for "pull" delivery at the
initiative of the Recipient system. POP and IMAP can also be used
for repeated access to messages on a remote MS.

Identities relevant to the MDA include:

RFC2821.Return-Path
Set by: Originator Source or Mediator Source

The MDA records the RFC2821.MailFrom address into the
RFC2822.Return-Path field.

RFC2822.Received

Set by: Destination MDA server

An MDA can record a Received header field, field to indicate trace
information, including source host and receiving host domain
names and/or IP Addresses.

5. Mediators

Basic email transfer from an Originator to the specified Recipients
is accomplished by using an asynchronous, store-and-forward
communication infrastructure, in a sequence of independent
transmissions through some number of MTAs. A very different task is
a User-level sequence of postings and deliveries, through Mediators.
A Mediator forwards a message, through a re-posting process. The
Mediator does share some functionality with basic MTA relaying, but
it enjoys a degree of freedom with both addressing and content that
is not available to MTAs.

RFC2821.HELO/.EHLO

Set by: Mediator Source

The MSA can specify its hosting domain identity for the SMTP HELO
or EHLO command operation.

RFC2821.MailFrom

Set by: Originator Source or Mediator Source

This is an end-to-end string that specifies an email address for
receiving return control Bounces. The name of this field is
misleading, because it is not required to specify either the
author or the agent responsible for submitting the message.
Rather the agent responsible for submission specifies the
RFC2821.MailFrom address. Ultimately the simple basis for
deciding what address needs to be in the RFC2821.MailFrom is to
determine what address needs to be informed about transmission-
level problems (and, possibly, successes.)

RFC2821.RcptTo

Set by: Mediator

This specifies the MUA mailbox address of a Recipient. The string
might not be visible in the message content header. For example,
the message destination address header fields, such as RFC2822.To,
might specify a mailing list address, while the RFC2821.RcptTo
address specifies a member of that list. Originator

RFC2821.Received

Set by: Mediator

An MSA can record a Received header field, to indicate initial
submission trace information, including originating host and MSA
host domain names and/or IP Addresses. Dest

The salient aspect of a Mediator, that distinguishes it from any
other MUA creating an entirely new message, is that a Mediator
preserves the integrity and tone of the original message, including
the essential aspects of the original its origination information. The Mediator
might also add commentary.

Examples of MUA message creation that are NOT performed by Mediators
include --

New message that forwards an existing message:

This action rather curiously provides a basic template for a class
of Mediators. However for its typical occurrence it is not itself
an example of a Mediator. The new message is viewed as being from
the Agent doing the forwarding, rather than being from the
original Originator.

A new message encapsulates the original message and is seen as
strictly "from" the Mediator. The Mediator might add commentary
and certainly has the opportunity to modify the original message
content. The forwarded message is therefore independent of the
original message exchange and creates a new message dialogue.
However the final Recipient sees the contained message as from the
original Originator.

Reply:

When a Recipient formulates a response back to the original
message's author, the new message is not typically viewed as being
a "forwarding" of the original. Its focus is the new content,
although it might contain all or part of the material in the
original message. Therefore the earlier material is merely
contextual and secondary.

Annotator:

Annotation:

The integrity of the original message is usually preserved, but
one or more comments about the message are added in a manner that
distinguishes commentary from original text. The tone of the new
message is that it is primarily commentary from a new Originator,
similar to a Reply.

The remainder of this section describes common examples of Mediators.

5.1. Aliasing

Aliasing is a simple re-addressing facility, facility that is available in most
MDA implementations. It is performed just before delivering placing a message to
into the specified Recipient's mailbox. Instead the message is
submitted back to the transfer service, for delivery to one or more
alternate addresses. Although typically implemented as part of the message delivery
service, an
MDA, this facility is strictly a Recipient user function. It
resubmits the message, replacing the envelope address, on behalf of
the mailbox address that was listed in the envelope.

What is most distinctive about this forwarding mechanism is how
closely it compares to normal MTA store-and-forward Relaying. Its
only interesting difference is that it changes the RFC2821.RcptTo
value. Having the change be this small makes it easy to view
aliasing as a part of the lower-level mail relaying activity.
However the small change has a large semantic impact: The designated
recipient has chosen a new recipient. Hence that original recipient
SHOULD become responsible for any handling issues. This change would
be reflected by replacing the message's RFC2821.MailFrom address to
be one within the scope of the ADMD doing the aliasing.

An MDA that is re-posting a message to an alias typically changes
only envelope information:

RFC2822.TO, RFC2822.CC, RFC2822.BCC

Set by: Originator

These retain their original addresses.

RFC2821.RcptTo

Set by: Mediator Originator

This field contains an alias address.

RFC2821.MailFrom

Set by: Originator or Mediator Originator Source or Mediator Source

The agent responsible for submission to an alias address will
often retain the original address to receive handling Bounces.
The benefit of retaining the original MailFrom value is to
ensure that the origination-side agent knows that there has
been a delivery problem. On the other hand, the responsibility
for the problem usually lies with the Recipient, since the
Alias mechanism is strictly under the Recipient's control.

RFC2821.Received
Set by: Mediator Dest

The agent can record Received information, to indicate the
delivery to the original address and submission to the alias
address. The trace of Received header fields can therefore
include everything from original posting through final delivery
to
the alias. a final delivery.

5.2. Re-Sending

Also called Re-Directing, Re-Sending differs from Forwarding by
virtue of having the Mediator "splice" a message's addressing
information, to connect the Originator of the original message and
the Recipient of the new message. This permits them to have direct
exchange, using their normal MUA Reply functions. Hence the new
Recipient sees the message as being From the original Originator,
even if the Mediator adds commentary.

Identities specified in a resent message include

RFC2822.From

Set by: original Originator

Names and email addresses for the original author(s) of the
message content are retained. The free-form (display-name)
portion of the address might be modified to provide informal
reference to the agent responsible for the redirection.

RFC2822.Reply-To

Set by: original Originator

If this field is present in the original message, it is
retained in the Resent message.

RFC2822.Sender

Set by: Originator or Mediator Originator Source or Mediator Source

This field is expected to contain the original Sender value.

RFC2822.TO, RFC2822.CC, RFC2822.BCC

Set by: original Originator
These specify the original message Recipients.

RFC2822.Resent-From

Set by: Mediator Originator

The address of the original Recipient who is redirecting the
message. Otherwise the same rules apply for the Resent-From
field as for an original RFC2822.From field

RFC2822.Resent-Sender

Set by: Mediator Source

The address of the agent responsible for re-submitting the
message. For efficiency As with RFC2822.Sender, this field is often omitted if
when it
contains would merely contain the same address as
RFC2822.Resent-From. However this
does not mean there is no Resend-Sender specified. Rather it
means that that header field is virtual and that the address in
the Resent-From field MUST be used. Specification of the error
return addresses (the Notification address, contained in
RFC2821.MailFrom) is made by the Resent-Sender. Typically the
Bounce address is the same as the Resent-Sender address. However
some usage scenarios require it to be different.

RFC2822.Resent-To, RFC2822.Resent-cc, RFC2822.Resent-bcc:

Set by: Mediator Originator

The addresses of the new Recipients who will now be able to
reply to the original author.

RFC2821.MailFrom

Set by: Mediator Source

The agent responsible for re-submission (RFC2822.Resent-Sender)
is also responsible for specifying the new MailFrom address.

RFC2821.RcptTo

Set by: Mediator Originator

This will contain the address of a new Recipient

RFC2822.Received

Set by: Mediator Dest

When resending a message the submission agent can record a
Received header field, to indicate the transition from original
posting to resubmission.

5.3. Mailing Lists

Mailing lists have explicit email addresses and they forward re-post messages
to a list of subscribed members. The Mailing List Actor performs a
task that can be viewed as an elaboration of the Re-Director role.
In addition to sending the new message to a potentially large number
of new Recipients, the Mediator can modify content, such as deleting
attachments, formatting conversion, and adding list-specific
comments. In addition, archiving list messages is common. Still the
message retains characteristics of being "from" the original
Originator.

Identities relevant to a mailing list processor, when submitting a
message, include:

RFC2919.List-Id

Set by: Mediator

This provides a global mailing list naming framework that is
independent of particular hosts. [RFC2919] Originator

RFC2369.List-*

Set by: Mediator

RFC2822.From

Set by: original Originator

Names and email addresses for the original author(s) of the
message content are specified. specified -- or, rather, retained.

RFC2822.Reply-To

Set by: original Originator or Mediator

Mailing lists have introduced an ambiguity for the Reply-To field.
Some List operations choose to force all replies to go to all list
members. They achieve this by placing the list address into the
RFC2822.Reply-To field. Hence direct, "private" replies only to
the original author cannot be achieved by using the MUA's typical
"reply to author" function. If the author created a Reply-To
field, its information is lost. Originator

RFC2822.Sender

Set by: Originator or Mediator Originator Source or Mediator Source

This will usually specify the address of the agent responsible
for mailing list operations. However some mailing lists
operate in a manner very similar to a simple MTA Relay, so that
they preserve as much of the original handling information as
possible, including the original RFC2822.Sender field.

RFC2822.TO, RFC2822.CC

Set by: original Originator

These will usually contain contains the original list of Recipient
addresses.

RFC2821.MailFrom

Set by: Originator Source or Mediator Source

This can contain the original address to be notified of
transmission issues, or the mailing list agent can set it to
contain a new Notification address. Typically the value is set
to a new address, so that mailing list members and posters are
not burdened with transmission-related Bounces.

RFC2821.RcptTo

Set by: Mediator Originator

This contains the address of a mailing list member.

RFC2821.Received

Set by: Mediator Dest

A Mailing List Agent can record a Received header field, to
indicate the transition from original posting to mailing list
forwarding. The Agent can choose to have the message retain
the original set of Received header fields or can choose to
remove them. In the latter case it can ensure that the
original Received header fields are otherwise available, to
ensure later accountability and diagnostic access to them.

5.4. Gateways

Gateways perform

A Gateway performs the basic routing and transfer work of message
relaying, but they it also may make any message or address modifications
that are needed to send the message into a messaging environment that
operates according to different standards or potentially incompatible
policies. When a Gateway connects two differing messaging services,
its role is easy to identify and understand. When it connects
environments that have technical similarity, but can have significant
administrative differences, it is easy to think that a Gateway is
merely an MTA.

The critical distinction between an MTA and a Gateway is that the
latter transforms addresses and/or message content, in order to map
between the standards of two, different messaging services. In
virtually all cases, this mapping process results in some degree of
semantic loss. The challenge of Gateway design is to minimize this
loss.

A Gateway can set any identity field available to a regular MUA.
Identities typically relevant to Gateways include:

RFC2822.From

Set by: original Originator

Names and email addresses for the original author(s) of the
message content are retained. As for all original addressing
information in the message, the Gateway can translate addresses
in whatever way will allow them continue to be useful in the
target environment.

RFC2822.Reply-To

Set by: original Originator

The Gateway SHOULD retain this information, if it is originally
present. The ability to perform a successful reply by a
Gatewayed Recipient is a typical test of Gateway functionality.

RFC2822.Sender

Set by: Originator Source or Mediator Source

This can retain the original value or can be set to a new
address

RFC2822.TO, RFC2822.CC, RFC2822.BCC

Set by: original Recipient

These usually retain their original addresses.

RFC2821.MailFrom

Set by: Originator Source or Mediator Source
The agent responsible for gatewaying the message can choose to
specify a new address to receive handling notices.

RFC2822.Received

Set by: Mediator Dest

The Gateway can record a Received header field, to indicate the
transition from original posting to the new messaging
environment.

5.5. Boundary Filter

Organizations often enforce security boundaries by subjecting
messages to analysis, for conformance with the organization's safety
policies. An example is detection of content classed as spam or a
virus. A Filter might alter the content, to render it safe, such as
by removing content deemed unacceptable. Typically these actions
will result in the addition of content that records the actions.

6. Security Considerations

This document does not specify any new Internet Mail functionality.
Consequently it is not intended to introduce any security
considerations.

However its discussion of the roles and responsibilities for
different mail service modules, and the information they create,
highlights the considerable degree to which security issues that are
present when implementing any component of the Internet Mail service.
In addition, email transfer protocols can operate over authenticated
and/or encrypted links, and message content or authorship can be
authenticated or encrypted.

7. IANA Considerations

This document has no actions for IANA.

8. References

7.1.

8.1. Normative

[RFC0821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10,
RFC 821, August 1982.

[RFC0822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet
text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.

[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.

[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

[RFC1939] Myers, J. and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3",
STD 53, RFC 1939, May 1996.

[RFC2033] Myers, J., "Local Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2033,
October 1996.

[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.

[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
November 1996.

[RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text",
RFC 2047, November 1996.

[RFC2048] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and J. Postel, "Multipurpose
Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration
Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 2048, November 1996.

[RFC2049] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and
Examples", RFC 2049, November 1996.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.

[RFC2304] Allocchio, C., "Minimal FAX address format in Internet
Mail", RFC 2304, March 1998.

[RFC2369] Neufeld, G. and J. Baer, "The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax
for Core Mail List Commands and their Transport through
Message Header Fields", RFC 2369, July 1998.

[RFC2421] Vaudreuil, G. and G. Parsons, "Voice Profile for Internet
Mail - version 2", RFC 2421, September 1998.

[RFC2423] Vaudreuil, G. and G. Parsons, "VPIM Voice Message MIME
Sub-type Registration", RFC 2423, September 1998.

[RFC2442] "The Batch SMTP Media Type", RFC 2442, November 1998.

[RFC2476] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission",
RFC 2476, December 1998.

[RFC2645] "On-Demand Mail Relay (ODMR) SMTP with Dynamic IP
Addresses", RFC 2465, 2645, August 1999.

[RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
April 2001.

[RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822,
April 2001.

[RFC2919] Chandhok, R. and G. Wenger, "List-Id: A Structured Field
and Namespace for the Identification of Mailing Lists",
RFC 2919, March 2001.

[RFC3028] Showalter, T., "Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language",
RFC 3028, January 2001.

[RFC3192] Allocchio, C., "Minimal FAX address format in Internet
Mail", RFC 2304, October 2001.

[RFC3297] Klyne, G., Iwazaki, R., and D. Crocker, "Content
Negotiation for Messaging Services based on Email",
RFC 3297, July 2002.

[RFC3458] Burger, E., Candell, E., Eliot, C., and G. Klyne, "Message
Context for Internet Mail", RFC 3458, January 2003.

[RFC3461] Moore, K., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service
Extension for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs)",
RFC 3461, January 2003.

[RFC3501] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.

[RFC3798] Hansen, T. and G. Vaudreuil, "Message Disposition
Notification", RFC 3798, May 2004.

[RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
Procedures for Message Header Fields", RFC 3864,
September 2004.

[RFC4021] Klyne, G. and J. Palme, "Registration of Mail and MIME
Header Fields", RFC 4021, March 2005.

[RFC4288] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and J. Postel, "Media Type
Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
RFC 4288, December 2005.

[RFC4289] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and J. Postel, "Multipurpose
Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration
Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4289, December 2005.

[RFC4409] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission for Mail",
RFC 4409, April 2006.

[RFC4550] Maes, S., , S., and Isode Ltd., "Internet Email to Support
Diverse Service Environments (Lemonade) Profile",
June 2006.

7.2.

8.2. Descriptive

[ID-ffpim]
Crocker, D. and G. Klyne, "Full-mode Fax Profile for
Internet Mail: FFPIM", March 2004.

[ID-spamops]
Hutzler, C., Crocker, D., Resnick, P., Sanderson, R., and
E. Allman, "Email Submission Between Independent
Networks", draft-spamops-00 (work in progress),
March 2004.

[RFC1733] Crispin, M., "Distributed Electronic Models in IMAP4",
December 1994.

[RFC1767] Crocker, D., "MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects",
RFC 1767, March 1995.

[RFC3801] Vaudreuil, G. and G. Parsons, "", RFC 3801, June 2004.

[RFC4142] Crocker, D. and G. Klyne, "Full-mode Fax Profile for
Internet Mail: FFPIM", December 2005.

[Tussle] Clark, D., Wroclawski, J., Sollins, K., and R. Braden,
"Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow's Internet",
ACM SIGCOMM, 2002.

Appendix A. Acknowledgements

This work derives from a section in draft-hutzler-spamops
[ID-spamops]. draft-hutzler-spamops.
[ID-spamops] Discussion of the Source actor role was greatly
clarified during discussions in the IETF's Marid working group.

Graham Klyne, Pete Resnick and Steve Atkins provided thoughtful
insight on the framework and details of the original drafts.

Later reviews and suggestions were provided by Nathaniel Borenstein,
Ed Bradford, Cyrus Daboo, Frank Ellermann, Tony Finch, Ned Freed,
Eric Hall, Brad Knowles, John Leslie, Bruce Lilly, Mark E. Mallett,
David MacQuigg, Chris Newman, Daryl Odnert, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim,
Marshall Rose, Hector Santos, Jochen Topf, Willemien Hoogendoorn,
Valdis Kletnieks.

Diligent proof-reading was performed by Bruce Lilly, Lilly.

Author's Address

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
675 Spruce Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
USA

Phone: +1.408.246.8253
Email: dcrocker@bbiw.net

Full Copyright Statement

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).