1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
|
Network Working Group C. Newman
Request for Comments: 3848 Sun Microsystems
Category: Standards Track July 2004
ESMTP and LMTP Transmission Types Registration
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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
This registers seven new mail transmission types (ESMTPA, ESMTPS,
ESMTPSA, LMTP, LMTPA, LMTPS, LMTPSA) for use in the "with" clause of
a Received header in an Internet message.
1. IANA Considerations
As directed by SMTP [2], IANA maintains a registry [7] of "WITH
protocol types" for use in the "with" clause of the Received header
in an Internet message. This registry presently includes SMTP [6],
and ESMTP [2]. This specification updates the registry as follows:
o The new keyword "ESMTPA" indicates the use of ESMTP when the SMTP
AUTH [3] extension is also used and authentication is successfully
achieved.
o The new keyword "ESMTPS" indicates the use of ESMTP when STARTTLS
[1] is also successfully negotiated to provide a strong transport
encryption layer.
o The new keyword "ESMTPSA" indicates the use of ESMTP when both
STARTTLS and SMTP AUTH are successfully negotiated (the
combination of ESMTPS and ESMTPA).
o The new keyword "LMTP" indicates the use of LMTP [4].
Newman Standards Track [Page 1]
^L
RFC 3848 ESMTP and LMTP Transmission Types Registration July 2004
o The new keyword "LMTPA" indicates the use of LMTP when the SMTP
AUTH extension is also used and authentication is successfully
achieved.
o The new keyword "LMTPS" indicates the use of LMTP when STARTTLS is
also successfully negotiated to provide a strong transport
encryption layer.
o The new keyword "LMTPSA" indicates the use of LMTP when both
STARTTLS and SMTP AUTH are successfully negotiated (the
combination of LSMTPS and LSMTPA).
o The references for the ESMTP and SMTP entries in the registry
should be updated to the latest specification [2] since both RFC
821 and RFC 1869 [5] are obsoleted by RFC 2821.
2. Implementation Experience
The ESMTPA, ESMTPS and ESMTPSA keywords have been implemented in
deployed email server software for several years and no problems have
been reported with their use.
3. Security Considerations
Use of these additional keywords provides trace information to
indicate when various high-level security framing protocols are used
for hop-to-hop transport of email without exposing details of the
specifics of the security mechanism. This trace information provides
an informal way to track the deployment of these mechanisms on the
Internet and can assist after-the-fact diagnosis of email abuse.
These keywords are not normally protected in transport which means
they can be modified by an active attacker. They also do not
indicate the specifics of the mechanism used, and therefore do not
provide any real-world security assurance. They should not be used
for mail filtering or relaying decisions except in very controlled
environments. As they are both cryptic and hidden in trace headers
used primarily to diagnose email problems, it is not expected they
will mislead end users with a false sense of security. Information
with a higher degree of reliability can be obtained by correlating
the Received headers with the logs of the various Mail Transfer
Agents through which the message passed.
The trace information provided by these keywords and other parts of
the Received header provide a significant benefit when doing after-
the-fact diagnosis of email abuse or problems. Unfortunately, some
people in a misguided attempt to hide information about their
internal servers will strip Received headers of useful information
Newman Standards Track [Page 2]
^L
RFC 3848 ESMTP and LMTP Transmission Types Registration July 2004
and reduce their ability to correct security abuses after they
happen. The result of such misguided efforts is usually a reduction
of the overall security of the systems.
4. References
4.1. Normative References
[1] Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over
Transport Layer Security", RFC 3207, February 2002.
[2] Klensin, J., Ed., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
April 2001.
[3] Myers, J., "SMTP Service Extension for Authentication", RFC
2554, March 1999.
[4] Myers, J., "Local Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2033, October
1996.
4.2. Informative References
[5] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D. Crocker,
"SMTP Service Extensions", STD 10, RFC 1869, November 1995.
[6] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821,
August 1982.
4.3. URIs
[7] <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters>
Author's Address
Chris Newman
Sun Microsystems
1050 Lakes Drive
West Covina, CA 91790
US
EMail: chris.newman@sun.com
Newman Standards Track [Page 3]
^L
RFC 3848 ESMTP and LMTP Transmission Types Registration July 2004
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Newman Standards Track [Page 4]
^L
|
