



Internet Draft                                               E. Allman
draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-01.txt                        Sendmail, Inc.
Valid for six months                                         T. Hansen
Updates: RFC 1891                                    AT&T Laboratories
                                                        March 20, 2001




                        SMTP Service Extension
                         for Message Tracking

                  <draft-ietf-msgtrk-smtpext-01.txt>

Status of This Memo

     This  document  is  an  Internet-Draft and is in full conformance
with all provisions of Section 10  of  RFC2026.   Internet-Drafts  are
working  documents  of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
areas, and its working groups.  Note that other groups may  also  dis-
tribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

     Internet-Drafts  are  draft  documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by  other  documents
at  any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

     The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at:

    http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at:

    http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html


     This document is a submission by the MSGTRK Working Group of  the
Internet  Engineering Task Force (IETF).  Comments should be submitted
to the msgtrk@imc.org mailing list.  An archive of  the  mailing  list
may be found at

    http://www.ietf.org/archive/msgtrk


     Distribution of this memo is unlimited.


1.  Abstract

        This  memo  defines an extension to the SMTP service whereby a
   client may mark a message for future tracking.

Internet Draft     Message Tracking ESMTP Extension     March 20, 2001


2.  Other Documents and Conformance

        The model used for Message Tracking is  described  in  [DRAFT-
   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 mecha-
   nisms should a Message Tracking query be issued.

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

        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 RFC 2119
   [RFC-KEYWORDS].


3.  SMTP Extension Overview

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

    (1)   The name of the SMTP service extension  is  "Message  Track-
          ing".

    (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
          options.

    (4)   One optional parameter using the keyword "MTRK" is added  to
          the  MAIL  FROM  command.   In addition, the ENVID and ORCPT
          parameters (as defined in RFC  1891  sections  5.4  and  5.2
          respectively)   MUST   be   supported,  with  extensions  as
          described below.

    (5)   The maximum length of a MAIL FROM command line is  increased
          by  40  characters by the possible addition of the MTRK key-
          word and value.  Note that a further extension of 614  char-
          acters  for  the  ORCPT  and ENVID parameters is required by
          RFC-DSN-EXT].

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






Allman & Hansen                                               [Page 2]

Internet Draft     Message Tracking ESMTP Extension     March 20, 2001


4.  The Extended MAIL FROM Command

        The extended MAIL FROM 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  FROM command is identical to the MAIL FROM command as defined
   in [RFC-SMTP], except that MTRK, ORCPT, and ENVID parameters appear
   after the address.

   4.1.  The MTRK parameter to the ESMTP MAIL command

           Any  sender  wishing to track a 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 ran-
      dom 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 FROM 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 vali-
      date future tracking requests as described in [DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP].
      B is stored in tracking tracking databases of compliant 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


Allman & Hansen                                               [Page 3]

Internet Draft     Message Tracking ESMTP Extension     March 20, 2001


      equal to the remaining life of that  message  tracking  informa-
      tion.   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.

   4.2.  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 1891 section 5.4 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  generat-
      ing  this  ENVID, and local-envid to an identifier that is never
      re-used by that host.

           Any retransmissions of  this  message  MUST  assign  a  new
      ENVID.  In this context, "retransmission" includes forwarding or
      resending a message.

   4.3.  Forwarding Tracking Certifiers

           MTAs SHOULD forward unexpired tracking certifiers  to  com-
      pliant 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 messages
      to a single recipient occurs, 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.

           MTAs MUST NOT copy MTRK certifiers when relaying a  message
      to multiple recipients.  An MTA MAY designate one recipient in a
      multi-recipient alias as the "primary" recipient to which track-
      ing  requests  shall  be  forwarded;  other  addresses SHALL NOT
      receive tracking certifiers.  MTAs MUST NOT forward MTRK  certi-
      fiers when doing mailing list expansion.



Allman & Hansen                                               [Page 4]

Internet Draft     Message Tracking ESMTP Extension     March 20, 2001


5.  Security Issues

   5.1.  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.

   5.2.  Confidentiality

           The mtrk-authenticator value (``A'') must be hard  to  pre-
      dict 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.

           MTAs  SHOULD  take precautions to make certain that message
      tracking cannot be used to explore internal topologies  of  net-
      works.

6.  References

   [DRAFT-MTRK-MODEL]
        T.   Hansen,  ``Message  Tracking  Model  and  Requirements.''
        draft-ietf-msgtrk-model-03.txt.  November 2000.

   [DRAFT-MTRK-MTQP]
        T. Hansen, ``Message Tracking Query  Protocol.''   draft-ietf-
        msgtrk-mtqp-01.txt.  November 2000.

   [RFC-ABNF]
        Crocker,  D., Editor, and P. Overell, ``Augmented BNF for Syn-
        tax Specifications: ABNF'', RFC 2234, November 1997.

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

   [RFC-DSN-REPT]
        G.  Vaudreuil,  ``The  Multipart/Report  Content  Type for the
        Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages.''  RFC 1892.
        January 1996.

   [RFC-DSN-SMTP]
        K. Moore, ``SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifi-
        cations.''  RFC 1891.  January 1996.

   [RFC-DSN-STAT]
        K. Moore and G. Vaudreuil, ``An Extensible Message Format  for
        Delivery Status Notifications.''  RFC 1894.  January 1996.




Allman & Hansen                                               [Page 5]

Internet Draft     Message Tracking ESMTP Extension     March 20, 2001


   [RFC-EMSSC]
        G.  Vaudreuil,  ``Enhanced  Mail  System  Status Codes.''  RFC
        1893.  January 1996.

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

   [RFC-KEYWORDS]
        S. Bradner, ``Key words for use in RFCs to  Indicate  Require-
        ment Levels.''  RFC 2119.  March 1997.

   [RFC-MDN]
        R. Fajman, ``An Extensible Message Format for Message Disposi-
        tion Notifications.''  RFC 2298.  March 1998.

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

   [RFC-MSGFMT]
        D. Crocker, ``Standard for the Format of  ARPA  Internet  Text
        Messages.''  RFC 822.  August 1982.

   [RFC-RANDOM]

   [RFC-RELATED]
        E. Levinson, ``The MIME Multipart/Related Content-type.''  RFC
        2387.  August 1998.

   [NIST-SHA1]
        NIST FIPS  PUB  180-1,  ``Secure  Hash  Standard.''   National
        Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Com-
        merce.  May 1994.  DRAFT.

   [RFC-SMTP]
        J. Postel,  ``Simple  Mail  Transport  Protocol.''   RFC  821.
        August 1982.

7.  Authors' Addresses

       Eric Allman
       Sendmail, Inc.
       6603 Shellmound
       Emeryville, CA  94608
       U.S.A.

       E-Mail: eric@Sendmail.COM
       Phone: +1 510 594 5501
       Fax: +1 510 594 5411






Allman & Hansen                                               [Page 6]

Internet Draft     Message Tracking ESMTP Extension     March 20, 2001


       Tony Hansen
       AT&T Laboratories
       Lincroft, NJ 07738
       U.S.A.

       Phone: +1 732 576 3207
       E-Mail: tony@att.com



















































Allman & Hansen                                               [Page 7]

