summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc6522.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc6522.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc6522.txt507
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]
+