SMTP Message Tracking: SMTP Service Extension for Message Tracking

Network Working Group                                          E. Allman
Request for Comments: 3885                                Sendmail, Inc.
Updates: 3461                                                  T. Hansen
Category: Standards Track                              AT&T Laboratories
                                                          September 2004


                         SMTP Service Extension
                          for Message Tracking

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 memo defines an extension to the SMTP service whereby a client
   may mark a message for future tracking.

1.  Other Documents and Conformance

   The model used for Message Tracking is described in [RFC-MTRK-MODEL].

   Doing a Message Tracking query is intended as a "last resort"
   mechanism.  Normally, Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs) [RFC-DSN-
   SMTP] and Message Disposition Notifications (MDNs) [RFC-MDN] would
   provide the primary delivery status.  Only if the message is not
   received, or there is no response from either of these mechanisms
   should a Message Tracking query be issued.

   The definition of the base64 token is imported from section 6.8 of
   [RFC-MIME].  Formally,

      base64 =  %x2b / %x2f / %x30-39 / %x41-5a / %x61-7a
   The definition of the DIGIT token is imported from [RFC-MSGFMT].
   Formally,

      DIGIT =        %x30-39

   Syntax notation in this document conforms to [RFC-ABNF].

   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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
   [RFC-KEYWORDS].

2.  SMTP Extension Overview

   The Message Tracking SMTP service extension uses the SMTP service
   extension mechanism described in [RFC-ESMTP].  The following service
   extension is hereby defined:

   (1)   The name of the SMTP service extension is "Message Tracking".

   (2)   The EHLO keyword value associated with this extension is
         "MTRK".

   (3)   No parameters are allowed with this EHLO keyword value.  Future
         documents may extend this specification by specifying
         parameters to this keyword value.

   (4)   One optional parameter using the keyword "MTRK" is added to the
         MAIL command.  In addition, the ENVID parameter of the MAIL
         command (as defined in RFC 3461) MUST be supported, with
         extensions as described below.  The ORCPT parameter of the RCPT
         command (as defined in RFC 3461) MUST also be supported.  All
         semantics associated with ENVID and ORCPT described in RFC 3461
         MUST be supported as part of this extension.

   (5)   The maximum length of a MAIL command line is increased by 40
         characters by the possible addition of the MTRK keyword and
         value.  Note that the 507 character extension of RCPT commands
         for the ORCPT parameter and the 107 character extension of MAIL
         commands for the ENVID parameter as mandated by RFC 3461 [RFC-
         DSN-SMTP] must also be included.

   (6)   No SMTP verbs are defined by this extension.

3.  The Extended MAIL Command

   The extended MAIL command is issued by an SMTP client when it wishes
   to inform an SMTP server that message tracking information should be
   retained for future querying.  The extended MAIL command is identical
   to the MAIL command as defined in [RFC-SMTP], except that MTRK,
   ORCPT, and ENVID parameters appear after the address.

3.1.  The MTRK parameter to the ESMTP MAIL command

   Any sender wishing to request the retention of data for further
   tracking of message must first tag that message as trackable by
   creating two values A and B:

      A = some-large-random-number
      B = SHA1(A)

   The large random number A is calculated on a host-dependent basis.
   See [RFC-RANDOM] for a discussion of choosing good random numbers.
   This random number MUST be at least 128 bits but MUST NOT be more
   than 1024 bits.

   The 128-bit hash B of A is then computed using the SHA-1 algorithm as
   described in [NIST-SHA1].

   The sender then base64 encodes value B and passes that value as the
   mtrk-certifier on the MAIL command:

      mtrk-parameter  = "MTRK=" mtrk-certifier [ ":" mtrk-timeout ]
      mtrk-certifier  = base64        ; authenticator
      mtrk-timeout    = 1*9DIGIT      ; seconds until timeout

   A is stored in the originator's tracking database to validate future
   tracking requests as described in [RFC-MTRK-MTQP].  B is stored in
   tracking databases of compliant receiver MTAs and used to
   authenticate future tracking requests.

   The mtrk-timeout field indicates the number of seconds that the
   client requests that this tracking information be retained on
   intermediate servers, as measured from the initial receipt of the
   message at that server.  Servers MAY ignore this value if it violates
   local policy.  In particular, servers MAY silently enforce an upper
   limit to how long they will retain tracking data; this limit MUST be
   at least one day.

   If no mtrk-timeout field is specified then the server should use a
   local default.  This default SHOULD be 8-10 days and MUST be at least
   one day.  Notwithstanding this clause, the information MUST NOT be
   expired while the message remains in the queue for this server: that
   is, an MTQP server MUST NOT deny knowledge of a message while that
   same message sits in the MTA queue.

   If the message is relayed to another compliant SMTP server, the MTA
   acting as the client SHOULD pass an mtrk-timeout field equal to the
   remaining life of that message tracking information.  Specifically,
   the tracking timeout is decremented by the number of seconds the
   message has lingered at this MTA and then passed to the next MTA.  If
   the decremented tracking timeout is less than or equal to zero, the
   entire MTRK parameter MUST NOT be passed to the next MTA;
   essentially, the entire tracking path is considered to be lost at
   that point.

   See [RFC-DELIVERYBY] section 4 for an explanation of why a timeout is
   used instead of an absolute time.

3.2.  Use of ENVID

   To function properly, Message Tracking requires that each message
   have a unique identifier that is never reused by any other message.
   For that purpose, if the MTRK parameter is given, an ENVID parameter
   MUST be included, and the syntax of ENVID from RFC 3461 is extended
   as follows:

      envid-parameter = "ENVID=" unique-envid
      unique-envid    = local-envid "@" fqhn
      local-envid     = xtext
      fqhn            = xtext

   The unique-envid MUST be chosen in such a way that the same ENVID
   will never be used by any other message sent from this system or any
   other system.  In most cases, this means setting fqhn to be the fully
   qualified host name of the system generating this ENVID, and local-
   envid to an identifier that is never re-used by that host.

   In some cases, the total length of (local-envid + fqhn + 1) (for the
   `@' sign) may exceed the total acceptable length of ENVID (100).  In
   this case, the fqhn SHOULD be replaced by the SHA1(fqhn) encoded into
   BASE64.  After encoding, the 160 bit SHA-1 will be a 27 octet string,
   which limits local-envid to 72 octets.  Implementors are encouraged
   to use an algorithm for the local-envid that is reasonably unique.
   For example, sequential integers have a high probability of
   intersecting with sequential integers generated by a different host,
   but a SHA-1 of the current time of day concatenated with the host's
   IP address and a random number are unlikely to intersect with the
   same algorithm generated by a different host.

   Any resubmissions of this message into the message transmission
   system MUST assign a new ENVID.  In this context, "resubmission"
   includes forwarding or resending a message from a user agent, but
   does not include MTA-level aliasing or forwarding where the message
   does not leave and re-enter the message transmission system.

3.3.  Forwarding Tracking Certifiers

   MTAs SHOULD forward unexpired tracking certifiers to compliant
   mailers as the mail is transferred during regular hop-to-hop
   transfers.  If the "downstream" MTA is not MTRK-compliant, then the
   MTRK= parameter MUST be deleted.  If the downstream MTA is DSN-
   compliant, then the ENVID and ORCPT parameters MUST NOT be deleted.

   If aliasing, forwarding, or other redirection of a recipient occurs,
   and the result of the redirection is exactly one recipient, then the
   MTA SHOULD treat this as an ordinary hop-to-hop transfer and forward
   the MTRK=, ENVID=, and ORCPT= values; these values MUST NOT be
   modified except for decrementing the mtrk-timeout field of the MTRK=
   value, which MUST be modified as described in section 4.1 above.

   MTAs MUST NOT copy MTRK certifiers when a recipient is aliased,
   forwarded, or otherwise redirected and the redirection results in
   more than one recipient.  However, an MTA MAY designate one of the
   multiple recipients as the "primary" recipient to which tracking
   requests shall be forwarded; other addresses MUST NOT receive
   tracking certifiers.  MTAs MUST NOT forward MTRK certifiers when
   doing mailing list expansion.

4.  Security Considerations

4.1.  Denial of service

   An attacker could attempt to flood the database of a server by
   submitting large numbers of small, tracked messages.  In this case, a
   site may elect to lower its maximum retention period retroactively.

4.2.  Confidentiality

   The mtrk-authenticator value ("A") must be hard to predict and not
   reused.

   The originating client must take reasonable precautions to protect
   the secret.  For example, if the secret is stored in a message store
   (e.g., a "Sent" folder), the client must make sure the secret isn't
   accessible by attackers, particularly on a shared store.

   Many site administrators believe that concealing names and topologies
   of internal systems and networks is an important security feature.
   MTAs need to balance such desires with the need to provide adequate
   tracking information.

   In some cases site administrators may want to treat delivery to an
   alias as final delivery in order to separate roles from individuals.
   For example, sites implementing "postmaster" or "webmaster" as
   aliases may not wish to expose the identity of those individuals by
   permitting tracking through those aliases.  In other cases, providing
   the tracking information for an alias is important, such as when the
   alias points to the user's preferred public address.

   Therefore, implementors are encouraged to provide mechanisms by which
   site administrators can choose between these alternatives.

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA has registered the SMTP extension defined in section 3.

6.  Acknowledgements

   Several individuals have commented on and enhanced this document,
   including Philip Hazel, Alexey Melnikov, Lyndon Nerenberg, Chris
   Newman, and Gregory Neil Shapiro.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC-MTRK-MODEL]   Hansen, T., "Message Tracking Model and
                      Requirements", RFC 3888, September 2004.

   [RFC-MTRK-MTQP]    Hansen, T., "Message Tracking Query Protocol", RFC
                      3887, September 2004.

   [RFC-ABNF]         Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF
                      for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234,
                      November 1997.

   [RFC-ESMTP]        Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E.,
                      and D. Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", STD 10,
                      RFC 1869, November 1995.

   [RFC-KEYWORDS]     Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
                      Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
                      March 1997.

   [RFC-MIME]         Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose
                      Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format
                      of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045, November
                      1996.

   [NIST-SHA1]        NIST FIPS PUB 180-1, "Secure Hash Standard"
                      National Institute of Standards and Technology,
                      U.S. Department of Commerce, May 1994.

   [RFC-SMTP]         Klensin, J., Ed., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol",
                      RFC 2821, April 2001.

   [RFC-MSGFMT]       Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC
                      2822, April 2001.

7.2.  Informational References

   [RFC-DELIVERYBY]   Newman, D., "Deliver By SMTP Service Extension",
                      RFC 2852, June 2000.

   [RFC-DSN-SMTP]     Moore, K., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)
                      Service Extension for Delivery Status
                      Notifications (DSNs)", RFC 3461, January 2003.

   [RFC-MDN]          Hansen, T. and G. Vaudreuil, Eds., "Message
                      Disposition Notification", RFC 3798, May 2004.

   [RFC-RANDOM]       Eastlake, D., Crocker, S., and J. Schiller,
                      "Randomness Recommendations for Security", RFC
                      1750, December 1994.

8.  Authors' Addresses

   Eric Allman
   Sendmail, Inc.
   6425 Christie Ave, 4th Floor
   Emeryville, CA  94608
   U.S.A.

   Phone: +1 510 594 5501
   Fax: +1 510 594 5429
   EMail: eric@Sendmail.COM


   Tony Hansen
   AT&T Laboratories
   Middletown, NJ 07748
   U.S.A.

   Phone: +1 732 420 8934
   EMail: tony+msgtrk@maillennium.att.com

9.  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.