idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-04.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 368. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 379. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 386. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 392. 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 8, 2007) is 6135 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 224, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2822 (Obsoleted by RFC 5322) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2821 (Obsoleted by RFC 5321) Summary: 2 errors (**), 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 9, 2008 freenet AG 6 July 8, 2007 8 Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto 9 draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-04 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 9, 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. Test notify_method_capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 2.3. Notify tag ":from" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 2.4. Notify tag ":importance" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 2.5. Notify tag ":options" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 2.6. Notify tag ":message" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 2.7. Other Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 64 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 66 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 68 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 69 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 70 7.2. Non-Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 72 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 73 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 14 75 1. Introduction 77 1.1. Overview 79 The [Notify] extension to the [Sieve] mail filtering language is a 80 framework for providing notifications by employing URIs to specify 81 the notification mechanism. This document defines how [mailto] URIs 82 are used to generate notifications by e-mail. 84 1.2. Conventions used in this document 86 Conventions for notations are as in [Sieve] section 1.1, including 87 the use of [Kwds]. 89 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 90 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 91 document are to be interpreted as described in [Kwds]. 93 2. Definition 95 The mailto mechanism results in the sending of a new email message (a 96 "notification message") to notify a recipient about a "triggering 97 message". 99 2.1. Notify parameter "method" 101 The mailto notification mechanism uses standard mailto URIs as 102 specified in [mailto]. 104 2.2. Test notify_method_capability 106 The notify_method_capability test for "online" may return "yes" or 107 "no" only if the Sieve processor can determine with certainty whether 108 or not the recipients of the notification message are online and 109 logged in. Otherwise, the test returns "maybe" for this notification 110 method. 112 2.3. Notify tag ":from" 114 The :from tag overrides the default sender of the notification 115 message. "Sender", here, refers to the value used in the [RFC2822] 116 "From" header. Implementations MAY also use this value in the 117 [RFC2821] "MAIL FROM" command (the "envelope sender"), or they may 118 prefer to establish a mailbox that receives bounces from notification 119 messages. 121 2.4. Notify tag ":importance" 123 The :importance tag has no special meaning for this notification 124 mechanism, and this specification puts no restriction on its use. 125 Implementations MAY use the value of :importance to set a priority or 126 importance indication on the notification message (perhaps a visual 127 indication, or perhaps making use of one of the non-standard but 128 commonly used message headers). 130 2.5. Notify tag ":options" 132 This tag is not used by the mailto method. 134 2.6. Notify tag ":message" 136 The value of this tag, if it is present, is used as the subject of 137 the notification message, and overrides all other mechanisms for 138 determining the subject (as described below). Its value SHOULD NOT 139 normally be truncated, though it may be sensible to truncate an 140 excessively long value. 142 2.7. Other Definitions 144 Because the receipt of an email message is generating another email 145 message, implementations MUST take steps to avoid mail loops. The 146 notification message contains the "Received:" fields from the 147 triggering message to allow loop detection as described in [RFC2821], 148 section 6.2. The implementation MUST allow messages with empty 149 envelope senders to trigger notifications. 151 Because this notification method uses a store-and-forward system for 152 delivery of the notification message, the Sieve processor should not 153 have a need to retry notifications. Therefore, implementations of 154 this method SHOULD use normal mechanisms for submitting SMTP messages 155 and for retrying the initial submission. Once the notification 156 message is submitted, implementations MUST NOT resubmit it, as this 157 is likely to result in multiple notifications, and increases the 158 danger of message loops. 160 The overall notification message is composed using the following 161 guidelines (see [RFC2822] for references to message header fields): 163 o Unless overridden by ":from", the "From:" header field and the 164 envelope sender of the notification message are set either to the 165 envelope "to" field from the triggering message, as used by Sieve, 166 or to a fixed address (so it "comes from the notification 167 system"), at the discretion of the implementation. This may not 168 be overridden by a "from" URI header, and any such URI header will 169 be ignored. 171 o The "To:" header field and the envelope recipient(s) of the 172 notification message are set to the address(es) specified in the 173 URI (including any URI headers where the hname is "to"). 175 o The "Subject:" field of the notification message contains the 176 value defined by the :message notify tag, as described in 177 [Notify]. If there is no :message tag and there is a "subject" 178 header on the URI, then that value is used. If that is also 179 absent, the subject is retained from the triggering message. Note 180 that Sieve [Variables] can be used to advantage here, as shown in 181 the example in Section 3. 183 o If the mailto URI contains a "body" header, the value of that 184 header is used as the body of the notification message. If there 185 is no "body" header, it is up to the implementation whether to 186 leave the body empty or to use an excerpt of the original message. 188 o The "Received:" fields from the triggering message are retained in 189 the notification message, as these may help detect and prevent 190 mail loops. URI headers with hname "received" are considered 191 unsafe, and will be ignored. 193 o Other header fields of the notification message that are normally 194 related to an individual new message (such as "Message-ID" and 195 "Date") are generated for the notification message in the normal 196 manner. Any URI headers with those names are ignored. Further, 197 the "Date" header serves as the notification timestamp defined in 198 [Notify]. 200 o All other header fields of the notification message either are as 201 specified by URI headers, or have implementation-specific values; 202 their values are not defined here. It is suggested that the 203 implementation capitalizes the first letter of URI headers and 204 adds a space character after the colon between the mail header 205 name and value when adding URI headers to the message. 207 3. Examples 209 Triggering message (received by recipient@example.org): 211 Return-Path: 212 Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org 213 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500 214 Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com 215 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800 216 Message-ID: <1234567.89ABCDEF@example.com> 217 Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:59:19 +0100 218 Precedence: list 219 List-Id: Knitting Mailing List 220 Sender: knitting-bounces@example.com 221 Errors-To: knitting-bounces@example.com 222 From: "Jeff Smith" 223 To: "Knitting Mailing List" 224 Subject: [Knitting] A new sweater 226 I just finished a great new sweater! 228 Sieve script (run on behalf of recipient@example.org): 230 require ["notify", "variables"]; 232 if header :contains "list-id" "knitting.example.com" { 233 if header :matches "Subject" "[*] *" { 234 notify :message "From ${1} list: ${2}" 235 :importance "3" 236 "mailto:0123456789@sms.example.net"; 237 } 238 } 240 Notification message: 242 Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org 243 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500 244 Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com 245 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800 246 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:55 -0500 247 Message-ID: 248 From: 249 To: <0123456789@sms.example.net> 250 Subject: From Knitting list: A new sweater 252 Note that: 254 o Fields such as "Message-ID:" and "Date:" were generated afresh for 255 the notification message, and do not relate to the triggering 256 message. 258 o Additional "Received:" fields will be added to the notification 259 message in transit; the ones shown were copied from the triggering 260 message. 262 o If this message should appear at the mail.example.org server 263 again, the server can use the presence of a "mail.example.org" 264 received line to avoid sending another notification. 266 4. Internationalization Considerations 268 This specification introduces no specific internationalization issues 269 that are not already addressed in [Sieve] and in [Notify]. 271 5. Security Considerations 273 Sending a notification is comparable with forwarding mail to the 274 notification recipient. Care must be taken when forwarding mail 275 automatically, to ensure that confidential information is not sent 276 into an insecure environment. 278 The automated sending of email messages exposes the system to mail 279 loops, which can cause operational problems. Implementations of this 280 specification MUST protect themselves against mail loops (see 281 Section 2.7). 283 Additional security considerations are discussed in [Sieve] and in 284 [Notify]. 286 6. IANA Considerations 288 The following template specifies the IANA registration of the Sieve 289 notification mechanism specified in this document: 291 To: iana@iana.org 292 Subject: Registration of new Sieve notification mechanism 293 Mechanism name: mailto 294 Mechanism URI: RFC2368 295 Mechanism-specific tags: none 296 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: this RFC 297 Person and email address to contact for further information: 298 Michael Haardt 300 This information should be added to the list of sieve notification 301 mechanisms given on 302 http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-notification. 304 7. References 306 7.1. Normative References 308 [Kwds] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 309 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 311 [Notify] Melnikov, A., Ed., Leiba, B., Ed., Segmuller, W., and T. 312 Martin, "Sieve Extension: Notifications", work in 313 progress, draft-ietf-sieve-notify, December 2005. 315 [RFC2822] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, 316 April 2001. 318 [Sieve] Guenther, P., Ed. and T. Showalter, Ed., "Sieve: An Email 319 Filtering Language", work in 320 progress, draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis, November 2005. 322 [mailto] Hoffman, P., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The mailto 323 URL scheme", RFC 2368, July 1998. 325 7.2. Non-Normative References 327 [RFC2821] Klensin, J., Ed., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", 328 RFC 2821, April 2001. 330 [Variables] 331 Homme, K., "Sieve Extension: Variables", work in 332 progress, draft-ietf-sieve-variables, October 2005. 334 Authors' Addresses 336 Barry Leiba 337 IBM T.J. Watson Research Center 338 19 Skyline Drive 339 Hawthorne, NY 10532 340 US 342 Phone: +1 914 784 7941 343 Email: leiba@watson.ibm.com 345 Michael Haardt 346 freenet AG 347 Willstaetter Str. 13 348 Duesseldorf, NRW 40549 349 Germany 351 Phone: +49 241 53087 520 352 Email: michael.haardt@freenet.ag 354 Full Copyright Statement 356 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 358 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 359 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 360 retain all their rights. 362 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 363 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 364 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 365 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 366 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 367 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 368 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 370 Intellectual Property 372 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 373 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 374 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 375 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 376 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 377 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 378 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 379 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 381 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 382 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 383 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 384 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 385 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 386 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 388 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 389 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 390 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 391 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 392 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 394 Acknowledgment 396 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 397 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).