OpenRFC.org Requests For Comments ... for the community
Welcome to OpenRFC
Home Full RFC index RFC humour Our technology
 
RFC 3848
ESMTP and LMTP Transmission Types Registration.
C. Newman. July 2004.

 
[Direct link][Download PDF version][Download text version]
 

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]
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]
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]
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]

   

[Home] [Full RFC index] [RFC humour] [Our technology]

Copyright © Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.  All rights reserved.
All trademarks and RFC contents are the property of their respective owners.