wdiff rfc6854.original rfc6854v3.txt

EAI Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Leiba
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 6854 Huawei Technologies
Updates: 5322 (if approved) December 5, 2012
Intended status: February 2013
Category: Standards Track
Expires: June 8, 2013
ISSN: 2070-1721

Update to Internet Message Format to Allow Group Syntax in the "From:"
and "Sender:" Header Fields
draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-09

Abstract

The Internet Message Format (RFC 5322) allows "group" syntax in some
email header fields, such as "To:" and "CC:", but not in "From:" nor or
"Sender:". This document updates RFC 5322 to relax that restriction,
allowing group syntax in those latter fields, as well as in "Resent-
From:"
"Resent-From:" and "Resent-Sender:", in certain situations.

Status of this This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

Information about the current status of six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on June 8, 2013.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6854.

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.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.2. Syntactic Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Allowing Group Syntax in "From:" and "Sender:" . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Replacement of RFC 5322, Section 3.6.2. Originator
Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Update to RFC 5322, Section 3.6.6. Resent Fields . . . . . 6
3. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9

1. Introduction

The Internet Message Format, as far back as RFC 822 [RFC0822], has
always required a usable address to appear in the "From:" header
field of messages in order to allow replies to be sent. To this end,
the syntax of messages, up to and including the current specification
[RFC5322], has required the use of the mailbox address form in the
originator ("From:" and "Sender:") fields of messages and has
specifically forbidden the use of the group address form, which
permits an empty list of addresses (that is, an address list with no
address included that might be used for a reply).

However, the use cases for the "From:" field have evolved. There are
numerous instances of automated systems that wish to send email but
cannot handle replies, and a "From:" field with no usable addresses
would be extremely useful for that purpose. More recently, work with
internationalized email addresses [RFC6530] creates the a real need to
take a message with an internationalized email address and hand it to
an older client that would have no ability to reply to such an
address but might still wish to display the contents of the message.
The group construct provides an existing syntax for unusable
addresses (using the empty list of addresses) and also allows for a
text label that describes the originator. For example:

From: Automated System:;

A review of many current email programs finds that all reviewed
clients will properly display a message with group syntax in the
"From:" field. At worst, such programs generate an error message
when an attempt is made to reply to such a message. No other
interoperability problems have been discovered.

This document therefore updates the Internet Message Format
specification [RFC5322] to relax that restriction, allowing group
syntax to be used in the originator ("From:" and "Sender:") fields,
as well as in their corresponding resent ("Resent-From:" and "Resent-
Sender:")
"Resent-Sender:") fields. This change permits empty groups, as
described above, and also permits named groups of mailboxes (groups
with non-
empty non-empty lists of addresses; see Section 4). Nevertheless,
this document recommends against the general use of group syntax in
these fields at this time (see Section 3).

1.1. Notational Conventions

The notational conventions here are the same as those in RFC 5322,
and the following two subsections are copied directly from that
document.

1.1.1. Requirements Notation

This document occasionally uses terms that appear in capital letters.
When the terms "MUST", "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD
NOT", and "MAY" appear capitalized, they are being used to indicate
particular requirements of this specification. A discussion of the
meanings of these terms appears in the Key Words document [RFC2119].

1.1.2. Syntactic Notation

This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)
[RFC5234] notation for the formal definitions of the syntax of
messages. Characters will be specified either by a decimal value
(e.g., the value %d65 for uppercase A and %d97 for lowercase A) or by
a case-insensitive literal value enclosed in quotation marks (e.g.,
"A" for either uppercase or lowercase A).

2. Allowing Group Syntax in "From:" and "Sender:"

Section 3.6.2 of RFC 5322 defines the "From:" header field as
containing a <mailbox-list> syntax element. This specification
changes that definition to use the <address-list> syntax element, as
is used in other fields, such as "To:", "CC:", and "Reply-To:". This
specification also changes the definition of the "Sender:" header
field from the <mailbox> syntax element to the <address> syntax
element. While the <address> element includes the <mailbox> element
already, we have chosen to specify both in the updated syntax as a
way of highlighting the limited use intended for the change (see
Section 3).

Section 2.1 below is a full replacement for Section 3.6.2 of RFC
5322, containing the new syntax as well as a new description of the
semantics for the "From:" and "Sender:" fields. Section 2.2 below is
a replacement of only the ABNF syntax for the "Resent-From:" and
"Resent-Sender:" fields in section Section 3.6.6 of RFC 5322; the rest of the
syntax as well as the descriptive text of section Section 3.6.6 of RFC 5322
remains unchanged.

[The text in the following section is not consistent within itself
nor with the rest of this document in how it refers to message header
fields, sometimes putting the field name in quotation marks and
sometimes not, sometimes capitalizing the field name and sometimes
not, and sometimes including the final colon and sometimes not.
Because minimizing changes to the original text is more important, in
this case, than attaining consistency, the text in Section 2.1, as
well as that in Section Sections 1.1.1 and Section 1.1.2 above, is left as it was in
RFC 5322.]
[[RFC Editor (please remove this paragraph before publication):
Please, therefore, hold back edits to Section 1.1.1, Section 1.1.2,
and Section 2.1. If you think there are editorial changes that you
must make, let's please discuss them explicitly during AUTH48.]]

2.1. Replacement of RFC 5322, Section 3.6.2. Originator Fields

The originator fields of a message consist of the from field, the
sender field (when applicable), and optionally the reply-to field.
The from field consists of the field name "From" and a comma-
separated
comma-separated list of one or more addresses (either mailbox or
group syntax). If the from field contains more than one mailbox
specification (including all mailboxes included in any groups), then
the sender field, containing the field name "Sender" and a single
address, MUST appear in the message. The from field and the sender
field SHOULD NOT use group syntax; rather, the from field SHOULD use
only the mailbox-list syntax and the sender field SHOULD use only
mailbox syntax (see RFC 6854, Section 3). If the sender field uses
group syntax, the group MUST NOT contain more than one mailbox. In
either case, an optional reply-to field MAY also be included, which
contains the field name "Reply-To" and a comma-separated list of one
or more addresses.

from = "From:" (mailbox-list / address-list) CRLF

sender = "Sender:" (mailbox / address) CRLF

reply-to = "Reply-To:" address-list CRLF

The originator fields indicate the mailbox(es) of the source of the
message. The "From:" field specifies the author(s) of the message,
that is, the mailbox(es) of the person(s) or system(s) responsible
for the writing of the message. The "Sender:" field specifies the
mailbox of the agent responsible for the actual transmission of the
message. For example, if a secretary were to send a message for
another person, the mailbox of the secretary would appear in the
"Sender:" field and the mailbox of the actual author would appear in
the "From:" field. If the originator of the message can be indicated
by a single mailbox and the author and transmitter are identical, the
"Sender:" field SHOULD NOT be used. Otherwise, both fields SHOULD
appear.

Note: The transmitter information is always present. The absence
of the "Sender:" field is sometimes mistakenly taken to mean that
the agent responsible for transmission of the message has not been
specified. This absence merely means that the transmitter is
identical to the author and is therefore not redundantly placed
into the "Sender:" field.

The originator fields also provide the information required when
replying to a message. When the "Reply-To:" field is present, it
indicates the address(es) to which the author of the message suggests
that replies be sent. In the absence of the "Reply-To:" field,
replies SHOULD by default be sent to the mailbox(es) specified in the
"From:" field unless otherwise specified by the person composing the
reply.

In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that
does not belong to the author(s) of the message. See also [RFC5322] Section
3.6.3 of RFC 5322 [RFC5322] for more information on forming the
destination addresses for a reply.

2.2. Update to RFC 5322, Section 3.6.6. Resent Fields

This section updates RFC 5322, Section 3.6.6, to allow groups (via
the address-list ABNF production) in the "Resent-From:" and "Resent-
Sender:"
"Resent-Sender:" fields, to parallel the change to "From:" and
"Sender:" above. The ABNF for those these fields is changed as follows:

resent-from = "Resent-From:" (mailbox-list / address-list) CRLF

resent-sender = "Resent-Sender:" (mailbox / address) CRLF

3. Applicability Statement

Mailbox syntax is the normal syntax to use in the "From:" and
"Sender:" header fields; the address syntax defined in Section 2.1,
which allows the specification of a group, is only for Limited Use
(see RFC 2026 [RFC2026], Section 3.3, item (d)) for the reasons
described below.

Very many

Many Internet email procedures and much software assume assumes that the
addresses in the "From:" and "Sender:" fields can be replied to and
are suitable for use in mail organizing and filtering. filtering mail. The use of
groups instead of mailboxes can disrupt those these uses. Consequently,
while this specification legitimizes the use of groups, it does so
only to enable circumstances when that use is necessary, and because necessary. Because the
use of this mechanism is new new, it is important that its use be limited
to
those these circumstances and that it be used with caution. In
particular, user agents SHOULD NOT permit the use of groups in those
fields in outgoing messages.

4. Examples

First, consider an email message that is sent by an automated nightly
monitor program, to which replies should not be sent. Such messages
commonly include a valid, replyable address that will discard any
replies that are sent to it, but recipients who do reply might be
unaware that their replies will be discarded. If the message is
instead presented this way, as follows, the recipients' email clients will not
allow them to reply in the first place:

From: Nightly Monitor Robot:;

Second, consider an email message that is meant to be "from" the two
managing partners of a business, Ben, Ben and Carol, and that is sent by
their assistant, Dave. That This message could always have been presented
this way:

From: ben@example.com,carol@example.com
Sender: dave@example.com

This change allows that it to be represented this way:

From: Managing Partners:ben@example.com,carol@example.com;
Sender: dave@example.com

5. Security Considerations

See the Internet Message Format specification [RFC5322] for general
discussion of security considerations related to the formatting of
email messages.

The "From:" address is special, in that most user agents display that this
address, or the "friendly" text associated with it, to the end user,
and label that it so as to identify it as the origin of the message (as
implied in Section 3.6.2 of RFC 5322). Group syntax in the "From:"
header field can be used to hide the identity of the message
originator. It is just as easy to use a fabricated "From:" address
to accomplish the same thing, so allowing groups there in this field does
not exacerbate the security problem.

Some protocols attempt to validate the originator address by matching
the "From:" address to a particular verified domain (see (for one such
protocol, see the Author Domain Signing Practices (ADSP) [RFC5617] for one such protocol). document
[RFC5617]). Such protocols will not be applicable to messages that
lack an actual email address (whether real or fake) in the "From:"
field. Local policy will determine how such messages are handled,
and senders, therefore, need to be aware that using groups in the
"From:" might adversely affect deliverability of the message.

Because groups have previously not been allowed in the "From:" and
"Sender:" header fields, it is possible that some implementations
that conform to RFC 5322 might not be prepared to handle that the group
syntax, and, indeed, might not even recognize that group syntax is
being used. Of those implementations, some subset might, when
presented with group syntax in those header fields, behave in a way
that is exploitable by an attacker. It is deemed unlikely that this
will be a serious problem in practice: address field parsing is
generally an integral component of implementations, and address field
parsers are required to understand group syntax. In addition, if any
implementations should be exploitable through this mechanism, it is
already possible for attackers to do it by violating RFC 5322, and
other 5322. Other
violations of RFC 5322 violations are commonly used by malefactors.

6. IANA Considerations

IANA is asked to update has updated the Permanent "Permanent Message Header Field Names Names" registry (
http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/perm-headers.html )
to include this document as a reference as follows:

OLD
+----------------+--------+------------+--------------------------+
| From | mail | standard | [RFC5322] |
+----------------+--------+------------+--------------------------+

+----------------+--------+------------+--------------------------+
| Sender | mail | standard | [RFC5322] |
+----------------+--------+------------+--------------------------+

+----------------+--------+------------+--------------------------+
| Resent-From | mail | standard | [RFC5322] |
+----------------+--------+------------+--------------------------+

+----------------+--------+------------+--------------------------+
| Resent-Sender | mail | standard | [RFC5322] |
+----------------+--------+------------+--------------------------+

7. References

7.1. Normative References

[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

[RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
October 2008.

7.2. Informative References

[RFC0822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet
text messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.

[RFC5617] Allman, E., Fenton, J., Delany, M., and J. Levine,
"DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Author Domain Signing
Practices (ADSP)", RFC 5617, August 2009.

[RFC6530] Klensin, J. and Y. Ko, "Overview and Framework for
Internationalized Email", RFC 6530, February 2012.

Author's Address

Barry Leiba
Huawei Technologies

Phone: +1 646 827 0648
Email:
EMail: barryleiba@computer.org
URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/