idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 16. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 324. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 335. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 342. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 348. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (July 6, 2007) is 6131 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'Knitting' is mentioned on line 184, but not defined -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2821 (Obsoleted by RFC 5321) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Sieve Working Group B. Leiba 3 Internet-Draft IBM T.J. Watson Research Center 4 Intended status: Standards Track M. Haardt 5 Expires: January 7, 2008 freenet AG 6 July 6, 2007 8 Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto 9 draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-03 11 Status of this Memo 13 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 14 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 15 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 16 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 18 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 19 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 20 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 21 Drafts. 23 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 24 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 25 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 26 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 28 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 31 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2008. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 40 Abstract 42 This document describes a profile of the Sieve extension for 43 notifications, to allow notifications to be sent by electronic mail. 45 Table of Contents 47 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 48 1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 49 1.2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 2. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 52 2.1. Notify parameter "method" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 2.2. Notify tag ":from" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 2.3. Notify tag ":importance" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 2.4. Notify tag ":options" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 2.5. Notify tag ":message" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 2.6. Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 63 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 65 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 68 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 7.2. Non-Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 71 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 72 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 13 74 1. Introduction 76 1.1. Overview 78 The [Notify] extension to the [Sieve] mail filtering language is a 79 framework for providing notifications by employing URIs to specify 80 the notification mechanism. This document defines how [mailto] URIs 81 are used to generate notifications by e-mail. 83 1.2. Conventions used in this document 85 Conventions for notations are as in [Sieve] section 1.1, including 86 the use of [Kwds]. 88 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 89 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 90 document are to be interpreted as described in [Kwds]. 92 2. Definition 94 The mailto mechanism results in the sending of a new email message (a 95 "notification message") to notify a recipient about a "triggering 96 message". 98 2.1. Notify parameter "method" 100 The mailto notification mechanism uses standard mailto URIs as 101 specified in [mailto]. 103 2.2. Notify tag ":from" 105 The :from tag overrides the default sender of the notification 106 message. 108 2.3. Notify tag ":importance" 110 The :importance tag has no special meaning for this notification 111 mechanism, and this specification puts no restriction on its use. 112 Implementations MAY use the value of :importance to set a priority or 113 importance indication on the notification message. 115 2.4. Notify tag ":options" 117 This tag is not used by the mailto method. 119 2.5. Notify tag ":message" 121 o Unless overridden by ":from", the "From:" header field and the 122 envelope sender of the notification message are set either to the 123 envelope "to" field from the triggering message, as used by Sieve, 124 or to a fixed address (so it "comes from the notification 125 system"), at the discretion of the implementation. 127 o The "To:" header field and the envelope recipient(s) of the 128 notification message are set to the address(es) specified in URI 129 (including any URI headers where the hname is "to"). 131 o The "Received:" field from the triggering message are retained in 132 the notification message, as these may help detect and prevent 133 mail loops. 135 o The "Subject:" field of the notification message contains the 136 value defined by the :message notify tag, as described in 137 [Notify]. If there is no :message tag, the subject is retained 138 from the triggering message. Note that Sieve [Variables] can be 139 used to advantage here, as shown in the example in Section 3. 141 o If the mailto URI contains a "body" header, the value of that 142 header is used as the body of the notification message. If there 143 is no "body" header, it is up to the implementation to leave the 144 body empty or use an excerpt of the original message. 146 o URI headers with hname "received" are considered unsafe and are 147 ignored if specified. URI headers with hname "from" and "subject" 148 conflict with the implictly set values from and are ignored if 149 specified. 151 o All other header fields of the notification message either are as 152 specified by URI headers, or have implementation-specific values; 153 their values are not defined here. It is suggested that the 154 implementation capitalizes the first letter of URI headers and 155 adds a space character after the colon between the mail header 156 name and value when adding URI headers to the message. 158 2.6. Other Definitions 160 Because the receipt of an email message is generating another email 161 message, implementations MUST take steps to avoid mail loops. The 162 notification message contains the "Received:" fields from the 163 triggering message to allow loop detection as described in [RFC2821], 164 section 6.2. The implementation MUST allow messages with empty 165 envelope senders to trigger notifications. 167 3. Examples 169 Triggering message (received by recipient@example.org): 171 Return-Path: 172 Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org 173 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500 174 Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com 175 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800 176 Message-ID: <1234567.89ABCDEF@example.com> 177 Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:59:19 +0100 178 Precedence: list 179 List-Id: Knitting Mailing List 180 Sender: knitting-bounces@example.com 181 Errors-To: knitting-bounces@example.com 182 From: "Jeff Smith" 183 To: "Knitting Mailing List" 184 Subject: [Knitting] A new sweater 186 I just finished a great new sweater! 188 Sieve script (run on behalf of recipient@example.org): 190 require ["notify", "variables"]; 192 if header :contains "list-id" "knitting.example.com" { 193 if header :matches "Subject" "[*] *" { 194 notify :message "From ${1} list: ${2}" 195 :importance "3" 196 "mailto:0123456789@sms.example.net"; 197 } 198 } 200 Notification message: 202 Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org 203 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500 204 Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com 205 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800 206 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:55 -0500 207 Message-ID: 208 From: 209 To: <0123456789@sms.example.net> 210 Subject: From Knitting list: A new sweater 212 Note that: 214 o Fields such as "Message-ID:" and "Date:" were generated afresh for 215 the notification message, and do not relate to the triggering 216 message. 218 o Additional "Received:" fields will be added to the notification 219 message in transit; the ones shown were copied from the triggering 220 message. 222 o If this message should appear at the mail.example.org server 223 again, the server can use the presence of a "mail.example.org" 224 received line to avoid sending another notification. 226 4. Internationalization Considerations 228 This specification introduces no specific internationalization issues 229 that are not already addressed in [Sieve] and in [Notify]. 231 5. Security Considerations 233 Sending a notification is comparable with forwarding mail to the 234 notification recipient. Care must be taken when forwarding mail 235 automatically, to ensure that confidential information is not sent 236 into an insecure environment. 238 The automated sending of email messages exposes the system to mail 239 loops, which can cause operational problems. Implementations of this 240 specification MUST protect themselves against mail loops. 242 Additional security considerations are discussed in [Sieve] and in 243 [Notify]. 245 6. IANA Considerations 247 The following template specifies the IANA registration of the Sieve 248 notification mechanism specified in this document: 250 To: iana@iana.org 251 Subject: Registration of new Sieve notification mechanism 252 Mechanism name: mailto 253 Mechanism URI: RFC2368 254 Mechanism-specific tags: none 255 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: this RFC 256 Person and email address to contact for further information: 257 Michael Haardt 259 This information should be added to the list of sieve notification 260 mechanisms given on 261 http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-notification. 263 7. References 265 7.1. Normative References 267 [Kwds] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 268 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 270 [Notify] Melnikov, A., Ed., Leiba, B., Ed., Segmuller, W., and T. 271 Martin, "Sieve Extension: Notifications", work in 272 progress, draft-ietf-sieve-notify, December 2005. 274 [Sieve] Guenther, P., Ed. and T. Showalter, Ed., "Sieve: An Email 275 Filtering Language", work in 276 progress, draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis, November 2005. 278 [mailto] Hoffman, P., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The mailto 279 URL scheme", RFC 2368, July 1998. 281 7.2. Non-Normative References 283 [RFC2821] Klensin, J., Ed., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", 284 RFC 2821, April 2001. 286 [Variables] 287 Homme, K., "Sieve Extension: Variables", work in 288 progress, draft-ietf-sieve-variables, October 2005. 290 Authors' Addresses 292 Barry Leiba 293 IBM T.J. Watson Research Center 294 19 Skyline Drive 295 Hawthorne, NY 10532 296 US 298 Phone: +1 914 784 7941 299 Email: leiba@watson.ibm.com 301 Michael Haardt 302 freenet AG 303 Willstaetter Str. 13 304 Duesseldorf, NRW 40549 305 Germany 307 Phone: +49 241 53087 520 308 Email: michael.haardt@freenet.ag 310 Full Copyright Statement 312 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 314 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 315 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 316 retain all their rights. 318 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 319 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 320 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 321 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 322 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 323 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 324 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 326 Intellectual Property 328 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 329 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 330 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 331 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 332 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 333 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 334 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 335 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 337 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 338 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 339 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 340 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 341 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 342 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 344 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 345 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 346 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 347 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 348 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 350 Acknowledgment 352 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 353 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).