diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc6522.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc6522.txt | 507 |
1 files changed, 507 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc6522.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc6522.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8078be3 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc6522.txt @@ -0,0 +1,507 @@ + + + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Kucherawy, Ed. +Request for Comments: 6522 Cloudmark +STD: 73 January 2012 +Obsoletes: 3462 +Category: Standards Track +ISSN: 2070-1721 + + + The Multipart/Report Media Type for + the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages + +Abstract + + The multipart/report Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) + media type is a general "family" or "container" type for electronic + mail reports of any kind. Although this memo defines only the use of + the multipart/report media type with respect to delivery status + reports, mail processing programs will benefit if a single media type + is used for all kinds of reports. + + This memo obsoletes "The Multipart/Report Content Type for the + Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages", RFC 3462, and + marks RFC 3462 and its predecessor as "Historic". + +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/rfc6522. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 6522 Multipart/Report Media Type January 2012 + + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2012 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. + + This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF + Contributions published or made publicly available before November + 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this + material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow + modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. + Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling + the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified + outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may + not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format + it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other + than English. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction ....................................................3 + 2. Document Conventions ............................................3 + 3. The Multipart/Report Media Type .................................3 + 4. The text/rfc822-headers Media Type ..............................5 + 5. Registering New Report Types ....................................7 + 6. IANA Considerations .............................................7 + 7. Security Considerations .........................................7 + 8. References ......................................................7 + 8.1. Normative References .......................................7 + 8.2. Informative References .....................................8 + Appendix A. Acknowledgements ......................................9 + + + + + + + + + + + +Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 6522 Multipart/Report Media Type January 2012 + + +1. Introduction + + [OLD-REPORT] and its antecedent declared the multipart/report media + type for use within the [MIME] construct to create a container for + mail system administrative reports of various kinds. + + Practical experience has shown that the general requirement of having + that media type constrained to be used only as the outermost MIME + type of a message is overly restrictive and limits such things as the + transmission of multiple administrative reports within a single + overall message container. In particular, it prevents one from + forwarding a report as part of another multipart MIME message. + + This memo removes that constraint. No other changes apart from some + editorial ones are made. Other memos might update other documents to + establish or clarify the constraints on use of multipart/report in + contexts where such are needed. + + This memo obsoletes RFC 3462. RFC 3462 and its predecessor, RFC + 1892, have been marked as "Historic". + +2. Document Conventions + + 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]. + +3. The Multipart/Report Media Type + + The multipart/report MIME media type is a general "family" or + "container" type for electronic mail reports of any kind. Although + this memo defines only the use of the multipart/report media type + with respect to delivery status reports, mail processing programs + will benefit if a single media type is used for all kinds of reports. + + Per [MIME-REG], the multipart/report media type is defined as + follows: + + Type name: multipart + + Subtype name: report + + Required parameters: boundary, report-type + + Optional parameters: none + + + + + + +Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 6522 Multipart/Report Media Type January 2012 + + + Encoding considerations: 7bit should always be adequate + + Security considerations: see Section 7 of [RFC6522] + + Interoperability considerations: see Section 1 of [RFC6522] + + Published specification: [RFC6522] + + Applications that use this media type: Mail Transfer Agents, Mail + User Agents, spam detection and reporting modules, virus detection + modules, and message authentication modules. + + Additional information: + + Magic number(s): N/A + + File extension(s): N/A + + Macintosh file type code(s): N/A + + Person and email address to contact for further information: Murray + S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> + + Intended usage: common + + Restrictions on usage: none; however, other applications that + register report types may establish such restrictions. + + Author: Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> + + Change controller: IESG + + The syntax of multipart/report is identical to the multipart/mixed + content type defined in [MIME]. The report-type parameter identifies + the type of report. The parameter is the MIME subtype of the second + body part of the multipart/report. (See Section 5.) + + The multipart/report media type contains either two or three sub- + parts, in the following order: + + 1. (REQUIRED) The first body part contains a human-readable message. + The purpose of this message is to provide an easily understood + description of the condition(s) that caused the report to be + generated, for a human reader who might not have a user agent + capable of interpreting the second section of the multipart/ + report. The text in the first section can use any IANA- + registered MIME media type, charset, or language. Where a + description of the error is desired in several languages or + + + +Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 6522 Multipart/Report Media Type January 2012 + + + several media, a multipart/alternative construct MAY be used. + This body part MAY also be used to send detailed information that + cannot be easily formatted into the second body part. + + 2. (REQUIRED) A machine-parsable body part containing an account of + the reported message handling event. The purpose of this body + part is to provide a machine-readable description of the + condition(s) that caused the report to be generated, along with + details not present in the first body part that might be useful + to human experts. An initial body part, message/delivery-status, + is defined in [DSN-FORMAT]. + + 3. (OPTIONAL) A body part containing the returned message or a + portion thereof. This information could be useful to aid human + experts in diagnosing problems. (Although it might also be + useful to allow the sender to identify the message about which + the report was issued, it is hoped that the envelope-id and + original-recipient-address returned in the message/report body + part will replace the traditional use of the returned content for + this purpose.) + + Return of content can be wasteful of network bandwidth and a variety + of implementation strategies can be used. Generally, the sender + needs to choose the appropriate strategy and inform the recipient of + the required level of returned content required. In the absence of + an explicit request for level of return of content such as that + provided in [DSN-SMTP], the agent that generated the delivery service + report SHOULD return the full message content. + + When 8-bit or binary data not encoded in a 7-bit form is to be + returned, and the return path is not guaranteed to be 8-bit or binary + capable, two options are available. The original message MAY be + re-encoded into a legal 7-bit MIME message or the text/rfc822-headers + media type MAY be used to return only the original message headers. + +4. The text/rfc822-headers Media Type + + The text/rfc822-headers media type provides a mechanism to label and + return only the [MAIL] header of a failed message. The header is not + the complete message and SHOULD NOT be returned using the message/ + rfc822 media type defined in [MIME-TYPES]. The returned header is + useful for identifying the failed message and for diagnostics based + on the Received header fields. + + + + + + + + +Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 6522 Multipart/Report Media Type January 2012 + + + The text/rfc822-headers media type is defined as follows: + + Type name: text + + Subtype name: rfc822-headers + + Required parameters: None + + Optional parameters: None + + Encoding considerations: 7-bit is sufficient for normal mail + headers, however, if the headers are broken or extended and + require encoding to make them legal 7-bit content, they MAY be + encoded with quoted-printable as defined in [MIME]. + + Security considerations: See Section 7 of [RFC6522]. + + Interoperability considerations: none + + Published specification: [RFC6522] + + Applications that use this media type: Mail Transfer Agents, Mail + User Agents, spam detection and reporting modules, virus detection + modules, and message authentication modules. + + Additional information: + + Magic number(s): N/A + + File extension(s): N/A + + Macintosh file type code(s): N/A + + Person and email address to contact for further information: Murray + S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> + + Intended usage: common + + Restrictions on usage: none + + Author: Murray S. Kucherawy <msk@cloudmark.com> + + Change controller: IESG + + The text/rfc822-headers body part SHOULD contain all the mail header + fields from the message that caused the report. The header includes + all header fields prior to the first blank line in the message. They + include the MIME-Version and MIME content description fields. + + + +Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 6522 Multipart/Report Media Type January 2012 + + +5. Registering New Report Types + + Registration of new media types for the purpose of creating a new + report format SHOULD note in the Intended Usage section of the media + type registration that the type being registered is suitable for use + as a report-type (i.e., the second body part) in the context of this + specification. + +6. IANA Considerations + + IANA has updated the Media Type Registry to indicate that this memo + contains the current definition of the multipart/report and text/ + rfc822-headers media types, obsoleting [OLD-REPORT]. + +7. Security Considerations + + Automated use of report types without authentication presents several + security issues. Forging negative reports presents the opportunity + for denial-of-service attacks when the reports are used for automated + maintenance of directories or mailing lists. Forging positive + reports can cause the sender to incorrectly believe a message was + delivered when it was not. + + A signature covering the entire multipart/report structure could be + used to prevent such forgeries; such a signature scheme is, however, + beyond the scope of this document. + +8. References + +8.1. Normative References + + [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. + + [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. + + + +Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 7] + +RFC 6522 Multipart/Report Media Type January 2012 + + +8.2. Informative References + + [DSN-FORMAT] Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message + Format for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3464, + January 2003. + + [DSN-SMTP] Moore, K., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) + Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications + (DSNs)", RFC 3461, January 2003. + + [OLD-REPORT] Vaudreuil, G., "The Multipart/Report Content Type for + the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages", + RFC 3462, January 2003. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 8] + +RFC 6522 Multipart/Report Media Type January 2012 + + +Appendix A. Acknowledgements + + The author would like to thank Dave Crocker, Frank Ellermann, Ned + Freed, Randall Gellens, Alexey Melnikov, and Keith Moore for their + input to this update. + + Thanks also go to Gregory M. Vaudreuil, the original creator of this + media type. + +Author's Address + + Murray S. Kucherawy (editor) + Cloudmark + 128 King St., 2nd Floor + San Francisco, CA 94107 + US + + Phone: +1 415 946 3800 + EMail: msk@cloudmark.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 9] + |