idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-05.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 439. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 450. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 457. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 463. 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 (October 5, 2007) is 6047 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 242, 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: April 7, 2008 freenet AG 6 October 5, 2007 8 Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto 9 draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-05 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 April 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. 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 67 6.1. Registration of notification mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . 11 68 6.2. New registry for Auto-Submitted header field keywords . . . 11 69 6.3. Initial registration of Auto-Submitted header field 70 keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 72 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 73 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 74 7.2. Non-Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 76 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 77 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 15 79 1. Introduction 81 1.1. Overview 83 The [Notify] extension to the [Sieve] mail filtering language is a 84 framework for providing notifications by employing URIs to specify 85 the notification mechanism. This document defines how [mailto] URIs 86 are used to generate notifications by e-mail. 88 1.2. Conventions used in this document 90 Conventions for notations are as in [Sieve] section 1.1, including 91 the use of [Kwds]. 93 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 94 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 95 document are to be interpreted as described in [Kwds]. 97 2. Definition 99 The mailto mechanism results in the sending of a new email message (a 100 "notification message") to notify a recipient about a "triggering 101 message". 103 2.1. Notify parameter "method" 105 The mailto notification mechanism uses standard mailto URIs as 106 specified in [mailto]. 108 2.2. Test notify_method_capability 110 The notify_method_capability test for "online" may return "yes" or 111 "no" only if the Sieve processor can determine with certainty whether 112 or not the recipients of the notification message are online and 113 logged in. Otherwise, the test returns "maybe" for this notification 114 method. 116 2.3. Notify tag ":from" 118 The :from tag overrides the default sender of the notification 119 message. "Sender", here, refers to the value used in the [RFC2822] 120 "From" header. Implementations MAY also use this value in the 121 [RFC2821] "MAIL FROM" command (the "envelope sender"), or they may 122 prefer to establish a mailbox that receives bounces from notification 123 messages. 125 2.4. Notify tag ":importance" 127 The :importance tag has no special meaning for this notification 128 mechanism, and this specification puts no restriction on its use. 129 Implementations MAY use the value of :importance to set a priority or 130 importance indication on the notification message (perhaps a visual 131 indication, or perhaps making use of one of the non-standard but 132 commonly used message headers). 134 2.5. Notify tag ":options" 136 This tag is not used by the mailto method. 138 2.6. Notify tag ":message" 140 The value of this tag, if it is present, is used as the subject of 141 the notification message, and overrides all other mechanisms for 142 determining the subject (as described below). Its value SHOULD NOT 143 normally be truncated, though it may be sensible to truncate an 144 excessively long value. 146 2.7. Other Definitions 148 Because the receipt of an email message is generating another email 149 message, implementations MUST take steps to avoid mail loops. The 150 notification message contains the "Received:" fields from the 151 triggering message to allow loop detection as described in [RFC2821], 152 section 6.2. The REQUIRED inclusion of an "Auto-Submitted:" field, 153 as described in the message composition guidelines, will also help in 154 loop detection and avoidance. 156 Implementations MUST NOT trigger notifications for messages 157 containing "Auto-Submitted:" header fields. 159 Implementations MUST allow messages with empty envelope senders to 160 trigger notifications. 162 Because this notification method uses a store-and-forward system for 163 delivery of the notification message, the Sieve processor should not 164 have a need to retry notifications. Therefore, implementations of 165 this method SHOULD use normal mechanisms for submitting SMTP messages 166 and for retrying the initial submission. Once the notification 167 message is submitted, implementations MUST NOT resubmit it, as this 168 is likely to result in multiple notifications, and increases the 169 danger of message loops. 171 The overall notification message is composed using the following 172 guidelines (see [RFC2822] for references to message header fields): 174 o The header field "Auto-Submitted: sieve-notify" MUST be included 175 in the notification message (see [RFC3834]). This is to reduce 176 the likelihood of message loops, by tagging this as an 177 automatically generated message. Among other results, it will 178 cause the notification message not to generate further 179 notifications. 181 o Unless overridden by ":from", the "From:" header field and the 182 envelope sender of the notification message are set either to the 183 envelope "to" field from the triggering message, as used by Sieve, 184 or to a fixed address (so it "comes from the notification 185 system"), at the discretion of the implementation. This may not 186 be overridden by a "from" URI header, and any such URI header will 187 be ignored. 189 o The "To:" header field and the envelope recipient(s) of the 190 notification message are set to the address(es) specified in the 191 URI (including any URI headers where the hname is "to"). 193 o The "Subject:" field of the notification message contains the 194 value defined by the :message notify tag, as described in 195 [Notify]. If there is no :message tag and there is a "subject" 196 header on the URI, then that value is used. If that is also 197 absent, the subject is retained from the triggering message. Note 198 that Sieve [Variables] can be used to advantage here, as shown in 199 the example in Section 3. 201 o If the mailto URI contains a "body" header, the value of that 202 header is used as the body of the notification message. If there 203 is no "body" header, it is up to the implementation whether to 204 leave the body empty or to use an excerpt of the original message. 206 o The "Received:" fields from the triggering message are retained in 207 the notification message, as these may help detect and prevent 208 mail loops. URI headers with hname "received" are considered 209 unsafe, and will be ignored. 211 o Other header fields of the notification message that are normally 212 related to an individual new message (such as "Message-ID" and 213 "Date") are generated for the notification message in the normal 214 manner. Any URI headers with those names are ignored. Further, 215 the "Date" header serves as the notification timestamp defined in 216 [Notify]. 218 o All other header fields of the notification message either are as 219 specified by URI headers, or have implementation-specific values; 220 their values are not defined here. It is suggested that the 221 implementation capitalizes the first letter of URI headers and 222 adds a space character after the colon between the mail header 223 name and value when adding URI headers to the message. 225 3. Examples 227 Triggering message (received by recipient@example.org): 229 Return-Path: 230 Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org 231 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500 232 Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com 233 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800 234 Message-ID: <1234567.89ABCDEF@example.com> 235 Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:59:19 +0100 236 Precedence: list 237 List-Id: Knitting Mailing List 238 Sender: knitting-bounces@example.com 239 Errors-To: knitting-bounces@example.com 240 From: "Jeff Smith" 241 To: "Knitting Mailing List" 242 Subject: [Knitting] A new sweater 244 I just finished a great new sweater! 246 Sieve script (run on behalf of recipient@example.org): 248 require ["notify", "variables"]; 250 if header :contains "list-id" "knitting.example.com" { 251 if header :matches "Subject" "[*] *" { 252 notify :message "From ${1} list: ${2}" 253 :importance "3" 254 "mailto:0123456789@sms.example.net"; 255 } 256 } 258 Notification message: 260 Received: from mail.example.com by mail.example.org 261 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:02 -0500 262 Received: from hobbies.example.com by mail.example.com 263 for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:00:26 -0800 264 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:08:55 -0500 265 Message-ID: 266 Auto-Submitted: sieve-notify 267 From: 268 To: <0123456789@sms.example.net> 269 Subject: From Knitting list: A new sweater 271 Note that: 273 o Fields such as "Message-ID:" and "Date:" were generated afresh for 274 the notification message, and do not relate to the triggering 275 message. 277 o Additional "Received:" fields will be added to the notification 278 message in transit; the ones shown were copied from the triggering 279 message. 281 o If this message should appear at the mail.example.org server 282 again, the server can use the presence of a "mail.example.org" 283 received line to recognize that. The Auto-Submitted header field 284 is also present to tell the server to avoid sending another 285 notification. 287 4. Internationalization Considerations 289 This specification introduces no specific internationalization issues 290 that are not already addressed in [Sieve] and in [Notify]. 292 5. Security Considerations 294 Sending a notification is comparable with forwarding mail to the 295 notification recipient. Care must be taken when forwarding mail 296 automatically, to ensure that confidential information is not sent 297 into an insecure environment. 299 The automated sending of email messages exposes the system to mail 300 loops, which can cause operational problems. Implementations of this 301 specification MUST protect themselves against mail loops (see 302 Section 2.7). 304 Additional security considerations are discussed in [Sieve] and in 305 [Notify]. 307 6. IANA Considerations 309 6.1. Registration of notification mechanism 311 The following template specifies the IANA registration of the Sieve 312 notification mechanism specified in this document: 314 To: iana@iana.org 315 Subject: Registration of new Sieve notification mechanism 316 Mechanism name: mailto 317 Mechanism URI: RFC2368 318 Mechanism-specific tags: none 319 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: this RFC 320 Person and email address to contact for further information: 321 Michael Haardt 323 This information should be added to the list of sieve notification 324 mechanisms given on 325 http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-notification. 327 6.2. New registry for Auto-Submitted header field keywords 329 Because [RFC3834] does not define a registry for new keywords used in 330 the Auto-Submitted header field, we define one here, to be created as 331 http://www.iana.org/assignments/auto-submitted-keywords. This 332 defines the template to be used to register new keywords. 334 To: iana@iana.org 335 Subject: Registration of new auto-submitted header field keyword 336 Keyword value: [the text value of the field] 337 Description: [a brief explanation of the purpose of this value] 338 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: [identifies 339 the specification that defines the value being registered] 340 Contact: [name and email address to contact for further information] 342 6.3. Initial registration of Auto-Submitted header field keywords 344 The following are the initial keywords to be registered for the Auto- 345 Submitted header field, to be entered in 346 http://www.iana.org/assignments/auto-submitted-keywords. 348 Keyword value: no 349 Description: Indicates that a message was NOT automatically 350 generated, but was created by a human. It is the equivalent to the 351 absence of an Auto-Submitted header altogether. 352 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834 353 Contact: Keith Moore 354 Keyword value: auto-generated 355 Description: Indicates that a message was generated by an automatic 356 process, and is not a direct response to another message. 357 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834 358 Contact: Keith Moore 360 Keyword value: auto-replied 361 Description: Indicates that a message was automatically generated as 362 a direct response to another message. 363 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: RFC3834 364 Contact: Keith Moore 366 Keyword value: sieve-notify 367 Description: Indicates that a message was generated by a Sieve 368 notification system. 369 Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: this RFC 370 Contact: Michael Haardt 372 7. References 374 7.1. Normative References 376 [Kwds] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 377 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. 379 [Notify] Melnikov, A., Ed., Leiba, B., Ed., Segmuller, W., and T. 380 Martin, "Sieve Extension: Notifications", work in 381 progress, draft-ietf-sieve-notify, December 2005. 383 [RFC2822] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, 384 April 2001. 386 [RFC3834] Moore, K., "Recommendations for Automatic Responses to 387 Electronic Mail", RFC 3834, August 2004. 389 [Sieve] Guenther, P., Ed. and T. Showalter, Ed., "Sieve: An Email 390 Filtering Language", work in 391 progress, draft-ietf-sieve-3028bis, November 2005. 393 [mailto] Hoffman, P., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The mailto 394 URL scheme", RFC 2368, July 1998. 396 7.2. Non-Normative References 398 [RFC2821] Klensin, J., Ed., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", 399 RFC 2821, April 2001. 401 [Variables] 402 Homme, K., "Sieve Extension: Variables", work in 403 progress, draft-ietf-sieve-variables, October 2005. 405 Authors' Addresses 407 Barry Leiba 408 IBM T.J. Watson Research Center 409 19 Skyline Drive 410 Hawthorne, NY 10532 411 US 413 Phone: +1 914 784 7941 414 Email: leiba@watson.ibm.com 416 Michael Haardt 417 freenet AG 418 Willstaetter Str. 13 419 Duesseldorf, NRW 40549 420 Germany 422 Phone: +49 241 53087 520 423 Email: michael.haardt@freenet.ag 425 Full Copyright Statement 427 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 429 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 430 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 431 retain all their rights. 433 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 434 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 435 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 436 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 437 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 438 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 439 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 441 Intellectual Property 443 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 444 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 445 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 446 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 447 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 448 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 449 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 450 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 452 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 453 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 454 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 455 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 456 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 457 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 459 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 460 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 461 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 462 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 463 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 465 Acknowledgment 467 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 468 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).