diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc8058.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc8058.txt | 507 |
1 files changed, 507 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc8058.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc8058.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ff7c2f6 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc8058.txt @@ -0,0 +1,507 @@ + + + + + + +Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Levine +Request for Comments: 8058 Taughannock Networks +Category: Standards Track T. Herkula +ISSN: 2070-1721 optivo GmbH + January 2017 + + + Signaling One-Click Functionality for List Email Headers + +Abstract + + This document describes a method for signaling a one-click function + for the List-Unsubscribe email header field. The need for this + arises out of the actuality that mail software sometimes fetches URLs + in mail header fields, and thereby accidentally triggers + unsubscriptions in the case of the List-Unsubscribe header field. + +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 7841. + + 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/rfc8058. + +Copyright Notice + + Copyright (c) 2017 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. + + + + + + +Levine & Herkula Standards Track [Page 1] + +RFC 8058 One-Click Unsubscribe January 2017 + + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction and Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 3. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3.1. Mail Senders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 3.2. Mail Receivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 4. Additional Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 5. Header Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 8. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 8.1. Simple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 8.2. Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 8.3. Complex with 'multipart/form-data' . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + +1. Introduction and Motivation + + A List-Unsubscribe email header field [RFC2369] can contain HTTPS + [RFC7230] URIs. In that header field, the HTTPS URI is intended to + unsubscribe the recipient of the message from the list. But anti- + spam software often fetches all resources in mail header fields + automatically, without any action by the user, and there is no + mechanical way for a sender to tell whether a request was made + automatically by anti-spam software or manually requested by a user. + To prevent accidental unsubscriptions, senders return landing pages + with a confirmation step to finish the unsubscribe request. A live + user would recognize and act on this confirmation step, but an + automated system would not. That makes the unsubscription process + more complex than a single click. + + Operators of broadcast marketing lists tend to be primarily concerned + about deliverability of their mail: whether the mail is delivered to + the recipients and how the messages are presented, e.g., whether in + the primary inbox or in a junk folder. Many mail systems allow + recipients to report mail as spam or junk, and mail streams from + senders whose mail is often reported as junk tend to have poor + deliverability. Hence, the mailers want to make it as easy as + possible for recipients to unsubscribe; if an unsubscription process + is too difficult, the recipient's alternative is to report mail from + the sender as junk until the mail no longer appears in the + recipient's inbox. + + Operators of recipient mail systems are aware that their users do not + make a clear distinction between unsubscription and junk. In some + cases, they allow trustworthy mailers to request notification when + + + +Levine & Herkula Standards Track [Page 2] + +RFC 8058 One-Click Unsubscribe January 2017 + + + their mail is reported as junk so they can unsubscribe the recipient, + but the process of identifying trustworthy mailers and notifying them + does not scale well to large numbers of small mailers. This + specification provides a way for recipient systems to notify the + mailer automatically, using only information within the mail message, + and without prearrangement. Some recipient systems might wish to + send an unsubscription notice to mailers whenever a user reports a + message as junk, or they might offer the user the option of reporting + and unsubscribing. + + If a mail recipient is unsubscribing manually and the unsubscription + process requires confirmation, the resulting web page is presented to + the recipient who can then click the appropriate button. But when + the unsubscribe action is combined with a user junk report, there is + no direct user interaction with the mailer's website. Similarly, if + a mail system automatically unsubscribes recipient mailboxes that + have been closed or abandoned, there can be no interaction with a + user who is not present. In those cases, the unsubscription process + has to work without manual intervention, and in particular without + requiring that software attempt to interpret the contents of a + confirmation page. + + This document addresses this part of the problem, with an HTTPS POST + action for mail receivers. Mail senders can distinguish this action + from other unsubscribe requests and handle it as a one-click + unsubscription without manual intervention by the mail recipient. + + This document has two goals: + + o Allow email senders to signal that a List-Unsubscribe header field + [RFC2369] has one-click functionality. + + o Allow MUA (Mail User Agent) users to unsubscribe from mailing + lists in a familiar environment and without leaving the MUA + context. A receiving system can process an unsubscription request + in the background without further interaction and know that it can + be fully processed by the mail sender's system. + +2. Definitions + + 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] when written + in all capital letters. + + + + + + + +Levine & Herkula Standards Track [Page 3] + +RFC 8058 One-Click Unsubscribe January 2017 + + +3. Implementation + +3.1. Mail Senders + + A mail sender that wishes to enable one-click unsubscriptions places + one List-Unsubscribe header field and one List-Unsubscribe-Post + header field in the message. The List-Unsubscribe header field MUST + contain one HTTPS URI. It MAY contain other non-HTTP/S URIs such as + MAILTO:. The List-Unsubscribe-Post header MUST contain the single + key/value pair "List-Unsubscribe=One-Click". As described below, the + message MUST have a valid DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) signature + that covers at least the List-Unsubscribe and List-Unsubscribe-Post + headers. + + The URI in the List-Unsubscribe header MUST contain enough + information to identify the mail recipient and the list from which + the recipient is to be removed, so that the unsubscription process + can complete automatically. Since there is no provision for extra + POST arguments, any information about the message or recipient is + encoded in the URI. In particular, one-click has no way to ask the + user what address or from what list the user wishes to unsubscribe. + + The POST request MUST NOT include cookies, HTTP authorization, or any + other context information. The unsubscribe operation is logically + unrelated to any previous web activity, and context information could + inappropriately link the unsubscribe to previous activity. + + The URI SHOULD include an opaque identifier or another hard-to-forge + component in addition to, or instead of, the plaintext names of the + list and the subscriber. The server handling the unsubscription + SHOULD verify that the opaque or hard-to-forge component is valid. + This will deter attacks in which a malicious party sends spam with + List-Unsubscribe links for a victim list, with the intention of + causing list unsubscriptions from the victim list as a side effect of + users reporting the spam, or where the attacker does POSTs directly + to the mail sender's unsubscription server. + + The mail sender needs to provide the infrastructure to handle POST + requests to the specified URI in the List-Unsubscribe header, and to + handle the unsubscribe requests that its mail will provoke. + + The mail sender MUST NOT return an HTTPS redirect, since redirected + POST actions have historically not worked reliably, and many browsers + have turned redirected HTTP POSTs into GETs. + + This document does not update [RFC2369], so the usage of List- + Unsubscribe URIs other than for one-click remains unchanged. + + + + +Levine & Herkula Standards Track [Page 4] + +RFC 8058 One-Click Unsubscribe January 2017 + + +3.2. Mail Receivers + + A mail receiver can do a one-click unsubscription by performing an + HTTPS POST to the HTTPS URI in the List-Unsubscribe header. It sends + the key/value pair in the List-Unsubscribe-Post header as the request + body. + + The POST content SHOULD be sent as 'multipart/form-data' [RFC7578] or + MAY be sent as 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded'. These encodings + are the ones used by web browsers when sending forms. The target of + the POST action is the same as the one in the GET action for a manual + unsubscription, so this is intended to allow the same server code to + handle both. + + The mail receiver MUST NOT perform a POST on the HTTPS URI without + user consent. When and how the user consent is obtained is not part + of this specification. + +4. Additional Requirements + + The message needs at least one valid authentication identifier. In + this version of the specification, the only supported identifier type + is DKIM [RFC6376]. Hence, senders MUST apply at least one valid DKIM + signature to the message. + + The List-Unsubscribe and List-Unsubscribe-Post headers MUST be + covered by the signature and included in the "h=" tag of a valid + DKIM-Signature header field. + + If the message does not have the required DKIM signature, the mail + receiver SHOULD NOT offer a one-click unsubscribe for that message. + +5. Header Syntax + + The following ABNF imports fields, WSP, and CRLF from [RFC5322]. + + fields =/ list-unsubscribe-post + + list-unsubscribe-post = "List-Unsubscribe-Post:" 0*1WSP postarg CRLF + + postarg = "List-Unsubscribe=One-Click" + +6. Security Considerations + + The List-Unsubscribe header can contain a plaintext or encoded + version of the recipient address, but that address is usually also in + the To: header. This specification allows anyone with access to a + + + + +Levine & Herkula Standards Track [Page 5] + +RFC 8058 One-Click Unsubscribe January 2017 + + + message to unsubscribe the recipient of the message, but that's + typically the case with existing List-Unsubscribe, just with more + steps. + + A malicious mailer could send spam with content intended to provoke + large numbers of unsubscriptions and with suitably crafted headers to + send POST requests to servers that perhaps don't want them. But it's + been possible to provoke GET requests in a similar way for a long + time (and much easier, due to spam filter auto-fetches), so the + chances of significantly increased annoyance seem low. The content + of the List-Unsubscribe-Post header is limited to a single known key/ + value pair to prevent an attacker from creating malicious messages + where the POST operation could simulate a user filling in an + arbitrary form on a victim website. + + The unsubscribe operation provides a strong hint to the mailer that + the address to which the message was sent was valid, and could in + principle be used as a way to test whether an email address is valid. + In practice, though, there are simpler ways such as embedding image + links into the HTML of a message and seeing whether the recipient + fetches the images. + + Since the mailer's server that receives the POST request cannot in + general tell where the request is coming from, the URI SHOULD contain + an opaque identifier or another hard-to-forge component to identify + the list and recipient address. That can ensure that the request + originated from the List-Unsubscribe and List-Unsubscribe-Post + headers in a message the mailer sent. Also, the request MUST NOT + include cookies or other context information to prevent the server + from associating the request with previous web requests. + +7. IANA Considerations + + IANA has added a new entry to the "Permanent Message Header Field + Names" registry. + + Header field name: List-Unsubscribe-Post + + Applicable protocol: mail + + Status: standard + + Author/Change controller: IETF + + Specification document: RFC 8058 + + + + + + +Levine & Herkula Standards Track [Page 6] + +RFC 8058 One-Click Unsubscribe January 2017 + + +8. Examples + +8.1. Simple + + Header in Email + + List-Unsubscribe: <https://example.com/unsubscribe/opaquepart> + List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click + + Resulting POST request + + POST /unsubscribe/opaquepart HTTP/1.1 + Host: example.com + Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded + Content-Length: 26 + + List-Unsubscribe=One-Click + +8.2. Complex + + Header in Email + + List-Unsubscribe: + <mailto:listrequest@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>, + <https://example.com/unsubscribe.html?opaque=123456789> + List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click + + Resulting POST request + + POST /unsubscribe.html?opaque=123456789 HTTP/1.1 + Host: example.com + Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded + Content-Length: 26 + + List-Unsubscribe=One-Click + +8.3. Complex with 'multipart/form-data' + + Header in Email + + List-Unsubscribe: + <mailto:listrequest@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>, + <https://example.com/unsubscribe.html/opaque123456789> + List-Unsubscribe-Post: List-Unsubscribe=One-Click + + + + + + + +Levine & Herkula Standards Track [Page 7] + +RFC 8058 One-Click Unsubscribe January 2017 + + + Resulting POST request + + POST /unsubscribe.html/opaque=123456789 HTTP/1.1 + Host: example.com + Content-Type: multipart/form-data; boundary=---FormBoundaryjWmhtjORrn + Content-Length: 124 + + ---FormBoundaryjWmhtjORrn + Content-Disposition: form-data; name="List-Unsubscribe" + + One-Click + ---FormBoundaryjWmhtjORrn-- + +9. Normative References + + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. + + [RFC2369] Neufeld, G. and J. Baer, "The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax + for Core Mail List Commands and their Transport through + Message Header Fields", RFC 2369, DOI 10.17487/RFC2369, + July 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2369>. + + [RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, + DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5322>. + + [RFC6376] Crocker, D., Ed., Hansen, T., Ed., and M. Kucherawy, Ed., + "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", STD 76, + RFC 6376, DOI 10.17487/RFC6376, September 2011, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6376>. + + [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer + Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", + RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>. + + [RFC7578] Masinter, L., "Returning Values from Forms: multipart/ + form-data", RFC 7578, DOI 10.17487/RFC7578, July 2015, + <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7578>. + + + + + + + + + +Levine & Herkula Standards Track [Page 8] + +RFC 8058 One-Click Unsubscribe January 2017 + + +Authors' Addresses + + John Levine + Taughannock Networks + PO Box 727 + Trumansburg, NY 14886 + United States of America + + Phone: +1 831 480 2300 + Email: standards@taugh.com + URI: http://jl.ly + + + Tobias Herkula + optivo GmbH + Wallstrasse 16 + Berlin 10179 + Germany + + Phone: +49 30 768078 129 + Email: t.herkula@optivo.com + URI: https://www.optivo.com + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Levine & Herkula Standards Track [Page 9] + |