Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
929190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 5965

An Extensible Format for Email Feedback Reports

Pages: 25
Proposed Standard
Errata
Updated by:  6650

Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 1
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                   Y. Shafranovich
Request for Comments: 5965                           ShafTek Enterprises
Category: Standards Track                                      J. Levine
ISSN: 2070-1721                                     Taughannock Networks
                                                            M. Kucherawy
                                                               Cloudmark
                                                             August 2010


            An Extensible Format for Email Feedback Reports

Abstract

This document defines an extensible format and MIME type that may be used by mail operators to report feedback about received email to other parties. This format is intended as a machine-readable replacement for various existing report formats currently used in Internet email. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5965. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................3 1.1. Purpose ....................................................3 1.2. Requirements ...............................................4 1.3. Definitions ................................................4 1.3.1. General .............................................4 1.3.2. Email Specific ......................................4 2. Format of Email Feedback Reports ................................4 3. The 'message/feedback-report' Content Type ......................5 3.1. Required Fields ............................................6 3.2. Optional Fields Appearing Once .............................6 3.3. Optional Fields Appearing Multiple Times ...................7 3.4. Notes about URIs ...........................................8 3.5. Formal Definition ..........................................8 4. Handling Malformed Reports .....................................10 5. Transport Considerations .......................................10 6. Extensibility ..................................................10 7. IANA Considerations ............................................11 7.1. MIME Type Registration of 'message/feedback-report' .......11 7.2. Feedback Report Header Fields .............................12 7.3. Feedback Report Type Values ...............................15 8. Security Considerations ........................................17 8.1. Inherited from RFC 3462 ...................................17 8.2. Interpretation ............................................17 8.3. Attacks against Authentication Methods ....................17 8.4. Intentionally Malformed Reports ...........................18 8.5. Omitting Data from ARF Reports ............................18 8.6. Automatically Generated ARF Reports .......................18 8.7. Attached Malware ..........................................18 8.8. The User-Agent Field ......................................18 8.9. Malformed Messages ........................................19 9. References .....................................................19 9.1. Normative References ......................................19 9.2. Informative References ....................................20 Appendix A. Acknowledgements .....................................22 Appendix B. Sample Feedback Reports ..............................22 B.1. Simple Report for Email Abuse without Optional Headers ...22 B.2. Full Report for Email Abuse with All Headers .............23
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 3

1. Introduction

As the spam problem continues to expand and potential solutions evolve, mail operators are increasingly exchanging abuse reports among themselves and other parties. However, different operators have defined their own formats, and thus the receivers of these reports are forced to write custom software to interpret each of them. In addition, many operators use various other report formats to provide non-abuse-related feedback about processed email. This memo uses the "multipart/report" content type defined in [REPORT], and in that context defines a standard extensible format by creating the "message/feedback-report" [MIME] type for these reports. While there has been previous work in this area (e.g., [STRADS-BCP] and [ASRG-ABUSE]), none of it has yet been successful. It is hoped that this document will have a better fate. This format is intended primarily as an Abuse Reporting Format (ARF) for reporting email abuse but also includes support for direct feedback via end user mail clients, reports of some types of virus activity, and some similar issues. This memo also contains provision for extensions should other specific types of reports be desirable in the future. This document only defines the format and [MIME] content type to be used for these reports. Determination of where these reports should be sent, validation of their contents, and how trust among report generators and report recipients is established are outside the scope of this document. It is assumed that best practices will evolve over time, and will be codified in future documents.

1.1. Purpose

The reports defined in this document are intended to inform mail operators about: o email abuse originating from their networks; o potential issues with the perceived quality of outbound mail, such as email service providers sending mail that attracts the attention of automated abuse detection systems. Please note that while the parent "multipart/report" content type defined in [REPORT] is used for all kinds of administrative messages, this format is intended specifically for communications among providers regarding email abuse and related issues, and SHOULD NOT be used for other reports.
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 4

1.2. Requirements

The following requirements are necessary for feedback reports (the actual specification is defined later in this document): o They must be both human and machine readable; o A copy of the original email message (both body and header) or the message header must be enclosed in order to allow the receiver to handle the report properly; o The machine-readable section must provide ability for the report generators to share meta-data with receivers; o The format must be extensible.

1.3. Definitions

This section defines various terms used throughout this document.

1.3.1. General

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].

1.3.2. Email Specific

[EMAIL-ARCH] introduces several terms and concepts that are used in this memo, and thus readers are advised to become familiar with it as well.

2. Format of Email Feedback Reports

To satisfy the requirements, an email feedback report is defined as a [MIME] message with a top-level MIME content type of "multipart/ report" (as defined in [REPORT]). The following apply: a. The "report-type" parameter of the "multipart/report" type is set to "feedback-report"; b. The first MIME part of the message contains a human-readable description of the report and MUST be included.
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 5
   c.  The second MIME part of the message is a machine-readable section
       with the content type of "message/feedback-report" (defined later
       in this memo) and MUST be included.  This section is intended to
       convey meta-data about the report in question that may not be
       readily available from the included email message itself.

   d.  The third MIME part of the message is either of type "message/
       rfc822" (as defined in [MIME-TYPES]) and contains the original
       message in its entirety OR is of type "text/rfc822-headers" (as
       defined in [REPORT]) and contains a copy of the entire header
       block from the original message.  This part MUST be included
       (contrary to [REPORT]).  While some operators may choose to
       modify or redact this portion for privacy or legal reasons, it is
       RECOMMENDED that the entire original email message be included
       without any modification as such modifications can impede
       forensic work by the recipient of this report.  See Section 8 for
       further discussion.

   e.  Except as discussed below, each feedback report MUST be related
       to only a single email message.  Summary and aggregate formats
       are outside of the scope of this specification.

   f.  The Subject header field of the feedback report SHOULD be the
       same as the included email message about which the report is
       being generated.  If it differs, the difference MUST be limited
       to only a typical forwarding prefix used by Mail User Agents
       (MUAs) such as "FW:".  (Many smaller operators using MUAs for
       abuse handling rely on the subject lines for processing.)

   g.  The primary evidence of the abuse being reported is found in the
       third part of the report, which contains the original message.
       The second part contains additional derived data that may help
       the receiver, but in terms of selecting actionable report data,
       report recipients SHOULD use the content of the third part first,
       then data from the second part.  The first part is meant to
       contain explanatory text for human use but is not itself a part
       of the report, and SHOULD NOT be used if it is in conflict with
       the other parts.

3. The 'message/feedback-report' Content Type

A new [MIME] content type called "message/feedback-report" is defined. This content type provides a machine-readable section intended to let the report generator convey meta-data to the report receiver. The intent of this section is to convey information that may not be obvious or may not be easily extracted from the original email message body or header.
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 6
   The body of this content type consists of multiple "fields" formatted
   according to the ABNF of [MAIL] header fields.  This section defines
   the initial set of fields provided by this specification.  Additional
   fields may be registered according to the procedure described later
   in this memo.  Although these fields have a syntax similar to those
   of mail message header fields, they are semantically distinct; hence,
   they SHOULD NOT be repeated as header fields of the message
   containing the report.  Note that these fields represent information
   that the receiver is asserting about the report in question, but are
   not necessarily verifiable.  Report receivers MUST NOT assume that
   these assertions are always accurate.

   Note that the above limitation in no way restricts the use of message
   header fields that are registered in the IANA header field registry
   with the same field names.

3.1. Required Fields

The following report header fields MUST appear exactly once: o "Feedback-Type" contains the type of feedback report (as defined in the corresponding IANA registry and later in this memo). This is intended to let report parsers distinguish among different types of reports. o "User-Agent" indicates the name and version of the software program that generated the report. The format of this field MUST follow section 14.43 of [HTTP]. This field is for documentation only; there is no registry of user agent names or versions, and report receivers SHOULD NOT expect user agent names to belong to a known set. o "Version" indicates the version of specification that the report generator is using to generate the report. The version number in this specification is set to "1".

3.2. Optional Fields Appearing Once

The following header fields are optional and MUST NOT appear more than once: o "Original-Envelope-Id" contains the envelope ID string used in the original [SMTP] transaction (see section 2.2.1 of [DSN]). o "Original-Mail-From" contains a copy of the email address used in the MAIL FROM portion of the original SMTP transaction. The format of this field is defined in section 4.1.2 of [SMTP] as "Reverse-path".
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 7
   o  "Arrival-Date" indicates the date and time at which the original
      message was received by the Mail Transfer Agent (MTA) of the
      generating ADMD (Administrative Management Domain).  This field
      MUST be formatted as per section 3.3 of [MAIL].

   o  "Reporting-MTA" indicates the name of the MTA generating this
      feedback report.  This field is defined in section 2.2.2 of [DSN],
      except that it is an optional field in this report.

   o  "Source-IP" contains an IPv4 or IPv6 address of the MTA from which
      the original message was received.  Addresses MUST be formatted as
      per section 4.1.3 of [SMTP].

   o  "Incidents" contains an unsigned 32-bit integer indicating the
      number of incidents this report represents.  The absence of this
      field implies the report covers a single incident.

   The historic field "Received-Date" SHOULD also be accepted and
   interpreted identically to "Arrival-Date".  However, if both are
   present, the report is malformed and SHOULD be treated as described
   in Section 4.

3.3. Optional Fields Appearing Multiple Times

The following set of header fields are optional and may appear any number of times as appropriate: o "Authentication-Results" indicates the result of one or more authentication checks run by the report generator. The format of this field is defined in [AUTH-RESULTS]. Report receivers should note that this field only indicates an assertion made by the report generator. o "Original-Rcpt-To" includes a copy of the email address used in the RCPT TO portion of the original [SMTP] transaction. The format of this field is a "Reverse-path" defined in section 4.1.2 of that memo. This field SHOULD be repeated for every SMTP recipient seen by the report generator. o "Reported-Domain" includes a domain name that the report generator believes to be relevant to the report, e.g., the domain whose apparent actions provoked the generation of the report. It is unspecified how the report generator determines this information, and thus the report receiver cannot be certain how it was chosen. It is often used as a means of suggesting to the report receiver how this report might be handled. In cases where the derivation
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 8
      is not obvious, the report generator is encouraged to clarify in
      the text section of the report.  Domain format is defined in
      section 2.3.1 of [DNS].

   o  "Reported-URI" indicates a URI that the report generator believes
      to be relevant to the report, e.g., a suspect URI that was found
      in the message that caused the report to be generated.  The same
      caveats about the origin of the value of "Reported-Domain" apply
      to this field.  The URI format is defined in [URI].

3.4. Notes about URIs

Implementors should be aware that the Reported-URI field can carry many different types of data depending on the URI scheme used. For more information, please consult the "URI Schemes" registry maintained by IANA. Furthermore, it is outside the scope of this standard whether the data carried in this field implies any additional information. Implementors may negotiate their own agreements surrounding the interpretation of this data.

3.5. Formal Definition

The formal definition of the contents of a "message/feedback-report" media type using [ABNF] is as follows: feedback-report = *( feedback-type / user-agent / version ) opt-fields-once *( opt-fields-many ) *( ext-field ) feedback-type = "Feedback-Type:" [CFWS] token [CFWS] CRLF ; the "token" must be a registered feedback type as ; described elsewhere in this document user-agent = "User-Agent:" [CFWS] product *( CFWS product ) [CFWS] CRLF version = "Version:" [CFWS] %x31-39 *DIGIT [CFWS] CRLF ; as described above opt-fields-once = [ arrival-date ] [ incidents ] [ original-envelope-id ] [ original-mail-from ] [ reporting-mta ] [ source-ip ]
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 9
   arrival-date = "Arrival-Date:" [CFWS] date-time CRLF

   incidents = "Incidents:" [CFWS] 1*DIGIT [CFWS] CRLF
             ; must be a 32-bit unsigned integer

   original-envelope-id = "Original-Envelope-Id:" [CFWS]
                          envelope-id [CFWS] CRLF

   original-mail-from = "Original-Mail-From:" [CFWS]
                        reverse-path [CFWS] CRLF

   reporting-mta = "Reporting-MTA:" [CFWS] mta-name-type [CFWS] ";"
                   [CFWS] mta-name [CFWS] CRLF

   source-ip = "Source-IP:" [CFWS]
               ( IPv4-address-literal /
                 IPv6-address-literal ) [CFWS] CRLF

   opt-fields-many = [ authres-header ]
                     [ original-rcpt-to ]
                     [ reported-domain ]
                     [ reported-uri ]

   original-rcpt-to = "Original-Rcpt-To:" [CFWS]
                      forward-path [CFWS] CRLF

   reported-domain = "Reported-Domain:" [CFWS]
                     domain [CFWS] CRLF

   reported-uri = "Reported-URI:" [CFWS] URI [CFWS] CRLF

   ext-field = field-name ":" unstructured

   A set of fields satisfying this ABNF may appear in the transmitted
   message in any order.

   "CRLF" and "DIGIT" are imported from [ABNF].

   "token" is imported from [MIME].

   "product" is imported from [HTTP].

   "field-name", "unstructured", "CFWS", "date-time", and "domain" are
   imported from [MAIL].

   "envelope-id", "mta-name-type", and "mta-name" are imported from
   [DSN].
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 10
   "reverse-path", "forward-path", "local-part", "IPv4-address-literal",
   and "IPv6-address-literal" are imported from [SMTP].

   "URI" is imported from [URI].

   "authres-header" is imported from [AUTH-RESULTS].

   "ext-field" refers to extension fields, which are discussed in
   Section 6.

4. Handling Malformed Reports

When an agent that accepts and handles ARF messages receives a message that purports (by MIME type) to be an ARF message but syntactically deviates from this specification, that agent SHOULD ignore or reject the message. Where rejection is performed, the rejection notice (either via an [SMTP] reply or generation of a [DSN]) SHOULD identify the specific cause for the rejection. See Section 8.9 for further discussion.

5. Transport Considerations

[DSN] requires that its reports be sent with the empty [SMTP] envelope sender to avoid bounce loops. A similar requirement was considered for this specification, but it seems unlikely that an ARF report would be generated in response to receipt of an ARF report, and furthermore such a requirement would prevent an ARF generator from ever determining that an ARF report was not actually received. On the other hand, if an ARF report is generated without the empty envelope sender and is sent to an address that actually does not work, then the generating address can also be overwhelmed by DSNs as a denial-of-service attack (see Section 8.6). This specification therefore makes no requirement related to the envelope sender of a generated report. Operators will have to consider what envelope sender to use within the context of their own installations.

6. Extensibility

Like many other formats and protocols, this format may need to be extended over time to fit the ever-changing landscape of the Internet. Therefore, extensibility is provided via two IANA registries: one for feedback types and a second for report header fields. The feedback type registry is to be used in conjunction with the "Feedback-Type" field above. The header name registry is
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 11
   intended for registration of new meta-data fields to be used in the
   machine-readable portion (part 2) of this format.  Please note that
   version numbers do not change with new field registrations unless a
   new specification of this format is published.  Also, note that all
   new field registrations may only be registered as optional fields.
   Any new required fields REQUIRE a new version of this specification
   to be published.

   In order to encourage extensibility and interoperability of this
   format, implementors MUST ignore any fields or report types they do
   not explicitly support.

   Additional report types (extension report types) or report header
   fields might be defined in the future by later revisions to this
   specification, or by registrations as described above.  Such types
   and fields MUST be registered as described above and published in an
   Open Specification such as an RFC.

   Experimental report types and report header fields MUST only be used
   between ADMDs that have explicitly consented to use them.  These
   names and the parameters associated with them are not documented in
   RFCs.  Therefore, they are subject to change at any time and are not
   suitable for general use.

7. IANA Considerations

IANA has registered a new [MIME] type and created two new registries, as described below.

7.1. MIME Type Registration of 'message/feedback-report'

This section provides the media type registration application from [MIME-REG] for processing by IANA: To: ietf-types@iana.org Subject: Registration of media type message/feedback-report Type name: message Subtype name: feedback-report Required parameters: none Optional parameters: none Encoding considerations: "7bit" encoding is sufficient and MUST be used to maintain readability when viewed by non-MIME mail readers.
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 12
   Security considerations:  See Section 8 of [RFC5965].

   Interoperability considerations:  Implementors MUST ignore any fields
      they do not support.

   Published specification:  [RFC5965]

   Applications that use this media type:  Abuse helpdesk software for
      ISPs, mail service bureaus, mail certifiers, and similar
      organizations

   Additional information:  none

   Person and email address to contact for further information:

         Yakov Shafranovich <ietf@shaftek.org>

         Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com>

   Intended usage:  COMMON

   Author:

         Yakov Shafranovich

         John R. Levine

         Murray S. Kucherawy

   Change controller:  IESG

7.2. Feedback Report Header Fields

IANA has created the "Feedback Report Header Fields" registry. This registry contains header fields for use in feedback reports, as defined by this memo. New registrations or updates MUST be published in accordance with the "Specification Required" guidelines as described in [IANA]. Any new field thus registered is considered optional by this specification unless a new version of this memo is published. New registrations and updates MUST contain the following information: 1. Name of the field being registered or updated 2. Short description of the field
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 13
   3.  Whether the field can appear more than once

   4.  To which feedback type(s) this field applies (or "any")

   5.  The document in which the specification of the field is published

   6.  New or updated status, which MUST be one of:

       current:  The field is in current use

       deprecated:  The field is in current use but its use is
          discouraged

       historic:  The field is no longer in current use

   An update may make a notation on an existing registration indicating
   that a registered field is historic or deprecated if appropriate.

   The initial registry contains these values:

       Field Name: Arrival-Date
       Description: date/time the original message was received
       Multiple Appearances: No
       Related "Feedback-Type": any
       Published in: [RFC5965]
       Status: current


       Field Name: Authentication-Results
       Description: results of authentication check(s)
       Multiple Appearances: Yes
       Related "Feedback-Type": any
       Published in: [RFC5965]
       Status: current


       Field Name: Feedback-Type
       Description: registered feedback report type
       Multiple Appearances: No
       Related "Feedback-Type": N/A
       Published in: [RFC5965]
       Status: current
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 14
       Field Name: Incidents
       Description: expression of how many similar incidents are
                    represented by this report
       Multiple Appearances: No
       Related "Feedback-Type": any
       Published in: [RFC5965]
       Status: current


       Field Name: Original-Mail-From
       Description: email address used in the MAIL FROM portion of the
                    original SMTP transaction
       Multiple Appearances: No
       Related "Feedback-Type": any
       Published in: [RFC5965]
       Status: current


       Field Name: Original-Rcpt-To
       Description: email address used in the RCPT TO portion of the
                    original SMTP transaction
       Multiple Appearances: Yes
       Related "Feedback-Type": any
       Published in: [RFC5965]
       Status: current


       Field Name: Received-Date
       Description: date/time the original message was received
                    (replaced by "Arrival-Date")
       Multiple Appearances: No
       Related "Feedback-Type": any
       Published in: [RFC5965]
       Status: historic


       Field Name: Reported-Domain
       Description: a domain name the report generator considers to
                    be key to the message about which a report is
                    being generated
       Multiple Appearances: Yes
       Related "Feedback-Type": any
       Published in: [RFC5965]
       Status: current
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 15
       Field Name: Reported-URI
       Description: a URI the report generator considers to be key
                    to the message about which a report is being
                    generated
       Multiple Appearances: Yes
       Related "Feedback-Type": any
       Published in: [RFC5965]
       Status: current


       Field Name: Reporting-MTA
       Description: MTA generating this report
       Multiple Appearances: No
       Related "Feedback-Type": any
       Published in: [RFC5965]
       Status: current


       Field Name: Source-IP
       Description: IPv4 or IPv6 address from which the original message
                    was received
       Multiple Appearances: No
       Related "Feedback-Type": any
       Published in: [RFC5965]
       Status: current


       Field Name: User-Agent
       Description: name and version of the program generating the
                    report
       Multiple Appearances: No
       Related "Feedback-Type": any
       Published in: [RFC5965]
       Status: current


       Field Name: Version
       Description: version of specification used
       Multiple Appearances: No
       Related "Feedback-Type": any
       Published in: [RFC5965]
       Status: current

7.3. Feedback Report Type Values

IANA has created the "Feedback Report Type Values" registry. This registry contains feedback types for use in feedback reports, defined by this memo.
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 16
   New registrations or updates MUST be published in accordance with the
   "Specification Required" guidelines as described in [IANA].  Any new
   field thus registered is considered optional by this specification
   unless a new version of this memo is published.

   New registrations MUST contain the following information:

   1.  Name of the feedback type being registered

   2.  Short description of the feedback type

   3.  The document in which the specification of the field is published

   4.  New or updated status, which MUST be one of:

       current:  The field is in current use

       deprecated:  The field is in current use but its use is
          discouraged

       historic:  The field is no longer in current use

   The initial registry contains these values:

       Feedback Type Name: abuse
       Description: unsolicited email or some other kind of email abuse
       Published in: [RFC5965]
       Status: current


       Feedback Type Name: fraud
       Description: indicates some kind of fraud or phishing activity
       Published in: [RFC5965]
       Status: current


       Feedback Type Name: other
       Description: any other feedback that does not fit into other
                    registered types
       Published in: [RFC5965]
       Status: current


       Feedback Type Name: virus
       Description: report of a virus found in the originating message
       Published in: [RFC5965]
       Status: current
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 17

8. Security Considerations

The following security considerations apply when generating or processing a feedback report:

8.1. Inherited from RFC 3462

All of the Security Considerations from [REPORT] are inherited here.

8.2. Interpretation

This specification describes a report format. The authentication and validity of the content of the report SHOULD be established through other means. The content of an unvetted report could be wrong, incomplete or deliberately false, including the alleged abuse incident in the third part, derived data in the second part or the human-readable first part. There will be some desire to perform some actions in an automated fashion in order to enact timely responses to common feedback reports. Caution must be taken, however, as there is no substantial security around the content of these reports. An attacker could craft a report meant to generate undesirable actions on the part of a report recipient. It is suggested that the origin of an ARF report be vetted, such as by using common message authentication schemes like [SMIME], [DKIM], [SPF], or [SENDERID], prior to the undertaking of any kind of automated action in response to receipt of the report. In particular, S/MIME offers the strongest authentication and the cost of key exchange is assumed in the process of establishing a bilateral reporting relationship that uses this specification; however, it is not as transparent as the others and thus will interfere with the parsing capabilities of code that is designed specifically to handle multipart/report messages. The details of the required validation to achieve this are a matter of local policy and are thus outside the scope of this specification.

8.3. Attacks against Authentication Methods

If an attack becomes known against an authentication method, clearly then the agent verifying that method can be fooled into thinking an inauthentic message is authentic, and thus the value of this header field can be misleading. It follows that any attack against an authentication method that might be used to protect the authenticity of an abuse report is also a security consideration here.
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 18

8.4. Intentionally Malformed Reports

It is possible for an attacker to generate an ARF message field that is extraordinarily large or otherwise malformed in an attempt to discover or exploit weaknesses in recipient parsing code. Implementors SHOULD thoroughly verify all such messages and be robust against intentionally as well as unintentionally malformed messages.

8.5. Omitting Data from ARF Reports

The sending of these reports can reveal possibly private information about the person sending the report. For example, such a report sent in response to a mailing list posting will reveal to the report recipient a valid email address on the list that might otherwise have remained hidden. For this reason, report generators might wish to redact portions of the report to conceal private information. Doing so could be necessary where privacy trumps operational necessity, but, as mentioned in Section 2, it might impede a timely or meaningful response from the report recipient.

8.6. Automatically Generated ARF Reports

Systems have been implemented that generate ARF reports automatically in response to an event. For example, software monitoring a honeypot email address might generate an ARF report immediately upon delivery of any message to it. An attacker that becomes aware of such a configuration can exploit it to attack an ARF recipient with automatically generated ARF reports.

8.7. Attached Malware

As this format is sometimes used to automatically report malware, ARF processors (human or otherwise) SHOULD ensure that attachments are processed in a manner appropriate for unverified and potentially hostile data.

8.8. The User-Agent Field

Further to Section 8.2, the User-Agent field is an assertion of the generating software and is neither specified in this memo nor derived from the message represented in the third part of the report. It is intended for documentation and debugging, and since it is trivially forged by a malicious agent, it SHOULD NOT be interpreted by recipients.
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 19

8.9. Malformed Messages

Further to the discussion in Section 4, there might be cases where an ARF processing agent elects to accept messages not consistent with this specification, such as during transition periods where some fields are moving toward "historic" or "deprecated" status, or the introduction of new non-standard extension or experimental fields. Such choices need to be implemented with extreme caution; where two different fields have related meaning (e.g., "Received-Date", which is historic, and "Arrival-Date", which is current), an attacker could craft a report that makes a confusing claim in an attempt to exploit such liberal parsing logic.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

[ABNF] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. [AUTH-RESULTS] Kucherawy, M., "Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status", RFC 5451, April 2009. [DNS] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. [DSN] Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3464, January 2003. [HTTP] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. [KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [MAIL] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, October 2008. [MIME] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 20
   [MIME-REG]      Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications
                   and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288,
                   December 2005.

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

   [REPORT]        Vaudreuil, G., "The Multipart/Report Content Type for
                   the Reporting of Mail System Administrative
                   Messages", RFC 3462, January 2003.

   [SMTP]          Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol",
                   RFC 5321, October 2008.

   [URI]           Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter,
                   "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax",
                   STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005.

9.2. Informative References

[ASRG-ABUSE] Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), "Abuse Reporting Standards Subgroup of the ASRG", May 2005. [DKIM] Allman, E., Callas, J., Delany, M., Libbey, M., Fenton, J., and M. Thomas, "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", RFC 4871, May 2007. [EMAIL-ARCH] Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598, July 2009. [IANA] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. [SENDERID] Lyon, J. and M. Wong, "Sender ID: Authenticating E-Mail", RFC 4406, April 2006. [SMIME] Ramsdell, B. and S. Turner, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Message Specification", RFC 5751, January 2010. [SPF] Wong, M. and W. Schlitt, "Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1", RFC 4408, April 2006.
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 21
   [STRADS-BCP]    Crissman, G., "Proposed Spam Reporting BCP Document",
                   May 2005.
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 22

Appendix A. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank many of the members of the email community who provided helpful comments and suggestions for this document including many of the participants in ASRG, IETF, and MAAWG activities, and all of the members of the abuse-feedback-report public mailing list.

Appendix B. Sample Feedback Reports

This section presents some examples of the use of this message format to report feedback about an arriving message.

B.1. Simple Report for Email Abuse without Optional Headers

Simple report: From: <abusedesk@example.com> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2005 17:40:36 EDT Subject: FW: Earn money To: <abuse@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=feedback-report; boundary="part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary" --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is an email abuse report for an email message received from IP 192.0.2.1 on Thu, 8 Mar 2005 14:00:00 EDT. For more information about this format please see http://www.mipassoc.org/arf/. --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary Content-Type: message/feedback-report Feedback-Type: abuse User-Agent: SomeGenerator/1.0 Version: 1 --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mailserver.example.net (mailserver.example.net [192.0.2.1]) by example.com with ESMTP id M63d4137594e46; Thu, 08 Mar 2005 14:00:00 -0400
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 23
   From: <somespammer@example.net>
   To: <Undisclosed Recipients>
   Subject: Earn money
   MIME-Version: 1.0
   Content-type: text/plain
   Message-ID: 8787KJKJ3K4J3K4J3K4J3.mail@example.net
   Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:31:03 -0500

   Spam Spam Spam
   Spam Spam Spam
   Spam Spam Spam
   Spam Spam Spam
   --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary--

   Example 1: Required fields only

   Illustration of a feedback report generated according to this
   specification.  Only the required fields are used.

B.2. Full Report for Email Abuse with All Headers

A full email abuse report: From: <abusedesk@example.com> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2005 17:40:36 EDT Subject: FW: Earn money To: <abuse@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=feedback-report; boundary="part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary" --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is an email abuse report for an email message received from IP 192.0.2.1 on Thu, 8 Mar 2005 14:00:00 EDT. For more information about this format please see http://www.mipassoc.org/arf/. --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary Content-Type: message/feedback-report Feedback-Type: abuse User-Agent: SomeGenerator/1.0 Version: 1 Original-Mail-From: <somespammer@example.net> Original-Rcpt-To: <user@example.com> Arrival-Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2005 14:00:00 EDT
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 24
   Reporting-MTA: dns; mail.example.com
   Source-IP: 192.0.2.1
   Authentication-Results: mail.example.com;
                  spf=fail smtp.mail=somespammer@example.com
   Reported-Domain: example.net
   Reported-Uri: http://example.net/earn_money.html
   Reported-Uri: mailto:user@example.com
   Removal-Recipient: user@example.com

   --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary
   Content-Type: message/rfc822
   Content-Disposition: inline

   From: <somespammer@example.net>
   Received: from mailserver.example.net (mailserver.example.net
        [192.0.2.1]) by example.com with ESMTP id M63d4137594e46;
        Thu, 08 Mar 2005 14:00:00 -0400

   To: <Undisclosed Recipients>
   Subject: Earn money
   MIME-Version: 1.0
   Content-type: text/plain
   Message-ID: 8787KJKJ3K4J3K4J3K4J3.mail@example.net
   Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:31:03 -0500

   Spam Spam Spam
   Spam Spam Spam
   Spam Spam Spam
   Spam Spam Spam
   --part1_13d.2e68ed54_boundary--

   Example 1: Generic abuse report with maximum returned information

   A contrived example in which the report generator has returned all
   possible information about an abuse incident.
Top   ToC   RFC5965 - Page 25

Authors' Addresses

Yakov Shafranovich ShafTek Enterprises 4014 Labyrinth Rd. Baltimore, MD 21215 US EMail: ietf@shaftek.org URI: http://www.shaftek.org John R. Levine Taughannock Networks PO Box 727 Trumansburg, NY 14886 US Phone: +1 831 480 2300 EMail: standards@taugh.com Murray S. Kucherawy Cloudmark 128 King St., 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 US Phone: +1 415 946 3800 EMail: msk@cloudmark.com