diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc5233.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc5233.txt | 395 |
1 files changed, 395 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc5233.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc5233.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2d50dfe --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc5233.txt @@ -0,0 +1,395 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group K. Murchison +Request for Comments: 5233 Carnegie Mellon University +Obsoletes: 3598 January 2008 +Category: Standards Track + + + Sieve Email Filtering: Subaddress Extension + +Status of This Memo + + This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the + Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for + improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet + Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state + and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. + +Abstract + + On email systems that allow for 'subaddressing' or 'detailed + addressing' (e.g., "ken+sieve@example.org"), it is sometimes + desirable to make comparisons against these sub-parts of addresses. + This document defines an extension to the Sieve Email Filtering + Language that allows users to compare against the user and detail + sub-parts of an address. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction ....................................................2 + 2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................2 + 3. Capability Identifier ...........................................2 + 4. Subaddress Comparisons ..........................................2 + 5. IANA Considerations .............................................5 + 6. Security Considerations .........................................5 + 7. Normative References ............................................5 + Appendix A. Acknowledgments ........................................6 + Appendix B. Changes since RFC 3598 .................................6 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Murchison Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 5233 Sieve: Subaddress Extension January 2008 + + +1. Introduction + + Subaddressing is the practice of augmenting the local-part of an + [RFC2822] address with some 'detail' information in order to give + some extra meaning to that address. One common way of encoding + 'detail' information into the local-part is to add a 'separator + character sequence', such as "+", to form a boundary between the + 'user' (original local-part) and 'detail' sub-parts of the address, + much like the "@" character forms the boundary between the local-part + and domain. + + Typical uses of subaddressing might be: + + o A message addressed to "ken+sieve@example.org" is delivered into a + mailbox called "sieve" belonging to the user "ken". + + o A message addressed to "5551212#123@example.com" is delivered to + the voice mailbox number "123" at phone number "5551212". + + This document describes an extension to the Sieve language defined by + [RFC5228] for comparing against the 'user' and 'detail' sub-parts of + an address. + +2. Conventions Used in This Document + + 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 [RFC2119]. + +3. Capability Identifier + + The capability string associated with the extension defined in this + document is "subaddress". + +4. Subaddress Comparisons + + Test commands that act exclusively on addresses may take the optional + tagged arguments ":user" and ":detail" to specify what sub-part of + the local-part of the address will be acted upon. + + NOTE: In most cases, the envelope "to" address is the preferred + address to examine for subaddress information when the desire is + to sort messages based on how they were addressed so as to get to + a specific recipient. The envelope address is, after all, the + reason a given message is being processed by a given sieve script + for a given user. This is particularly true when mailing lists, + + + + + +Murchison Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 5233 Sieve: Subaddress Extension January 2008 + + + aliases, and 'virtual domains' are involved since the envelope may + be the only source of detail information for the specific + recipient. + + NOTE: Because the encoding of detailed addresses are site and/or + implementation specific, using the subaddress extension on foreign + addresses (such as the envelope "from" address or originator + header fields) may lead to inconsistent or incorrect results. + + The ":user" argument specifies the user sub-part of the local-part of + an address. If the address is not encoded to contain a detail sub- + part, then ":user" specifies the entire left side of the address + (equivalent to ":localpart"). + + The ":detail" argument specifies the detail sub-part of the local- + part of an address. If the address is not encoded to contain a + detail sub-part, then the address fails to match any of the specified + keys. If a zero-length string is encoded as the detail sub-part, + then ":detail" resolves to the empty value (""). + + NOTE: If the encoding method used for detailed addresses utilizes + a separator character sequence, and the separator character + sequence occurs more than once in the local-part, then the logic + used to split the address is implementation-defined and is usually + dependent on the format used by the encompassing mail system. + + Implementations MUST make sure that the encoding method used for + detailed addresses matches that which is used and/or allowed by the + encompassing mail system, otherwise unexpected results might occur. + Note that the mechanisms used to define and/or query the encoding + method used by the mail system are outside the scope of this + document. + + The ":user" and ":detail" address parts are subject to the same rules + and restrictions as the standard address parts defined in [RFC5228], + Section 2.7.4. + + For convenience, the "ADDRESS-PART" syntax element defined in + [RFC5228], Section 2.7.4, is augmented here as follows: + + ADDRESS-PART =/ ":user" / ":detail" + + A diagram showing the ADDRESS-PARTs of an email address where the + detail information follows a separator character sequence of "+" is + shown below: + + + + + + +Murchison Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 5233 Sieve: Subaddress Extension January 2008 + + + :user "+" :detail "@" :domain + \-----------------/ + :local-part + + A diagram showing the ADDRESS-PARTs of a email address where the + detail information precedes a separator character sequence of "--" is + shown below: + + :detail "--" :user "@" :domain + \------------------/ + :local-part + + Example (where the detail information follows "+"): + + require ["envelope", "subaddress", "fileinto"]; + + # In this example the same user account receives mail for both + # "ken@example.com" and "postmaster@example.com" + + # File all messages to postmaster into a single mailbox, + # ignoring the :detail part. + if envelope :user "to" "postmaster" { + fileinto "inbox.postmaster"; + stop; + } + + # File mailing list messages (subscribed as "ken+mta-filters"). + if envelope :detail "to" "mta-filters" { + fileinto "inbox.ietf-mta-filters"; + } + + # Redirect all mail sent to "ken+foo". + if envelope :detail "to" "foo" { + redirect "ken@example.net"; + } + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Murchison Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 5233 Sieve: Subaddress Extension January 2008 + + +5. IANA Considerations + + The following template specifies the IANA registration of the + subaddress Sieve extension specified in this document. This + registration replaces that from RFC 3598: + + To: iana@iana.org + Subject: Registration of new Sieve extension + + Capability name: subaddress + Description: Adds the ':user' and ':detail' address parts + for use with the address and envelope tests + RFC number: RFC 5233 + Contact address: The Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org> + + This information has been added to the list of Sieve extensions given + on http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions. + +6. Security Considerations + + Security considerations are discussed in [RFC5228]. It is believed + that this extension does not introduce any additional security + concerns. + +7. Normative References + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. + + [RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April + 2001. + + [RFC5228] Guenther, P., Ed., and T. Showalter, Ed., "Sieve: An Email + Filtering Language", RFC 5228, January 2008. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Murchison Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 5233 Sieve: Subaddress Extension January 2008 + + +Appendix A. Acknowledgments + + Thanks to Tim Showalter, Alexey Melnikov, Michael Salmon, Randall + Gellens, Philip Guenther, Jutta Degener, Michael Haardt, Ned Freed, + Mark Mallett, and Barry Leiba for their help with this document. + +Appendix B. Changes since RFC 3598 + + o Discussion of how the user and detail information is encoded now + uses generic language. + + o Added note detailing that this extension is most useful when used + on the envelope "to" address. + + o Added note detailing that this extension isn't very useful on + foreign addresses (envelope "from" or originator header fields). + + o Fixed envelope test example to only use "to" address. + + o Replaced ":user" example with one that doesn't produce unexpected + behavior. + + o Refer to the zero-length string ("") as "empty" instead of "null" + (per RFC 5228). + + o Use only RFC 2606 domains in examples. + + o Miscellaneous editorial changes. + +Author's Address + + Kenneth Murchison + Carnegie Mellon University + 5000 Forbes Avenue + Cyert Hall 285 + Pittsburgh, PA 15213 + USA + + Phone: +1 412 268 2638 + EMail: murch@andrew.cmu.edu + + + + + + + + + + + +Murchison Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 5233 Sieve: Subaddress Extension January 2008 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). + + This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions + contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors + retain all their rights. + + This document and the information contained herein are provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS + OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND + THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS + OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF + THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED + WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Intellectual Property + + The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any + Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to + pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in + this document or the extent to which any license under such rights + might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has + made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information + on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be + found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. + + Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any + assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an + attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of + such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this + specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at + http://www.ietf.org/ipr. + + The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any + copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary + rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement + this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at + ietf-ipr@ietf.org. + + + + + + + + + + + + +Murchison Standards Track [Page 7] + |