One document matched: draft-ietf-sieve-editheader-01.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-sieve-editheader-00.txt
Internet Draft Philip Guenther
Expires: November 2005 Sendmail, Inc.
May 2005
Sieve Email Filtering: Editheader Extension
draft-ietf-sieve-editheader-01.txt
Status of this memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute 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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document defines two new actions for the "Sieve" email
filtering language that add and delete email header fields.
1. Introduction
Email header fields are a flexible and easy to understand means
of communication between email processors.
This extension enables sieve scripts to interact with other
components that consume or produce header fields by allowing
the script to delete and add header fields.
2. Conventions used.
Conventions for notations are as in [SIEVE] section 1.1, including
use of [KEYWORDS] and the "Syntax:" label for the definition of
action and tagged arguments syntax.
The term "header field" is used here as in [IMAIL] to mean a
logical line of an email message header.
The capability string associated with the extension defined in
this document is "editheader".
3. Action addheader
Syntax: "addheader" [":last"] <field-name: string> <value: string>
The addheader action adds a header field to the existing message
header. The field-name MUST be a valid 7-bit US-ASCII header
field name as described by the [IMAIL] "field-name" nonterminal
syntax element. The addheader action does not affect Sieve's
implicit keep.
If the specified field value does not match the RFC 2822
"unstructured" nonterminal syntax element or exceeds a length
limit set by the implementation, the implementation MUST either
flag an error or encode the field using folding white space and
the encodings described in [RFC2047] or [RFC2231] to be compliant
with RFC 2822.
An implementation MAY impose a length limit onto the size of
the encoded header field; such a limit MUST NOT be less
than 998 characters, not including the terminating CRLF
supplied by the implementation.
By default, the header field is inserted at the beginning of the
existing message header. If the optional flag ":last" is
specified, it is appended at the end.
Example:
/* Don't redirect if we already redirected */
if not header :contains "X-Sieve-Filtered"
["<kim@job.example.com>", "<kim@home.example.com>"]
{
addheader "X-Sieve-Filtered" "<kim@job.example.com>";
redirect "kim@home.example.com";
}
4. Action deleteheader
Syntax: "deleteheader" [":index" <fieldno: number> [":last"]]
[COMPARATOR] [MATCH-TYPE]
<field-name: string>
[<value-patterns: string-list>]
By default, the deleteheader action deletes all occurrences of
the named header field. The deleteheader action does not affect
Sieve's implicit keep.
The field-name is mandatory and always matched as a
case-insensitive US-ASCII string. The value-patterns,
if specified, are matched according to the match type and
comparator. If none are specified, all values match.
The field-name MUST be a valid 7-bit header field name as described
by the [IMAIL] "field-name" nonterminal syntax element.
If :index <fieldno> is specified, the attempts to match
a value are limited to the header field <fieldno> (beginning
at 1, the first named header field). If :last is specified,
the count is backwards; 1 denotes the last named header field,
2 the second to last, and so on. The counting happens
before the <value-patterns> match, if any. For example:
deleteheader :index 2 :contains "Received" "via carrier-pigeon"
deletes the second "Received:" header field if it contains
the string "via carrier-pigeon" (not the second Received: field
that contains "via carrier-pigeon").
It is not an error if no header fields match the conditions in
the deleteheader action or if the :index argument is greater
than the number of named header fields.
5. Interaction with Other Sieve Extensions
Tests and actions such as "exists", "header", or "vacation"
[VACATION] that examine header fields MUST examine the current
state of a header as modified by any actions that have taken
place so far.
As an example, the "header" test in the following fragment will
always evaluate to true, regardless of whether the incoming
message contained an "X-Hello" header field or not:
addheader "X-Hello" "World";
if header :contains "X-Hello" "World"
{
fileinto "international";
}
However, if the presence or value of a header field affects how
the implementation parses or decodes other parts of the message,
then for the purposes of that parsing or decoding the implementation
MAY ignore some or all changes made to those header fields. For
example, in an implementation that supports the [BODY] extension,
"body" tests may be unaffected by deleting or adding Content-Type
or Content-Transfer-Encoding header fields. This does not rescind
the requirement that changes to those header fields affect direct
tests; only the semantic side effects of changes to the fields
may be ignored.
Actions that store or send the message MUST do so with the current
set of header fields.
For the purpose of weeding out duplicates, a message modified
by addheader or deleteheader MUST be considered the same as
the original message. For example, in an implementation that
obeys the constraint in [SIEVE] section 2.10.3 and does not deliver
the same message to a folder more than once, the following
code fragment
keep;
addheader "X-Flavor" "vanilla";
keep;
MUST only file one message. It is up to the implementation
to pick which of the redundant "fileinto" or "keep" actions is
executed, and which ones are ignored.
The "implicit keep" is thought to be executed at the end of
the script, after the headers have been modified. (However,
a canceled "implicit keep" remains canceled.)
6. IANA Considerations
The following template specifies the IANA registration of the Sieve
extension specified in this document:
To: iana@iana.org
Subject: Registration of new Sieve extension
Capability name: editheader
Capability keyword: editheader
Capability arguments: N/A
Standards Track/IESG-approved experimental RFC number: this RFC
Person and email address to contact for further information:
Jutta Degener
jutta@pobox.com
This information should be added to the list of sieve extensions
given on http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions.
7. Security Considerations
Someone with write access to a user's script storage may use this
extension to generate headers that a user would otherwise be
shielded from (by a gateway MTA that removes them).
A sieve filter that removes header fields may unwisely destroy
evidence about the path a message has taken.
Any change in a message content may interfere with digital
signature mechanisms that include the header in the signed
material. Since normal message delivery adds "Received:"
header fields to the beginning of a message, many such schemas
are impervious to headers prefixed to a message, and will
work with "addheader" unless :last is used.
Any decision mechanism in a user's filter that is based
on headers is vulnerable to header spoofing. For example,
if the user adds an APPROVED header or tag, a malicious sender
may add that tag or header themselves. One way to guard against
this is to delete or rename any such headers or stamps prior
to processing the message.
Modifying the header of a message and then using the "reject"
action may let a sender 'probe' the logic of the sieve filter.
8. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Eric Allman, Cyrus Daboo, Matthew Elvey, Ned Freed,
Arnt Gulbrandsen, Simon Josefsson, Will Lee, William Leibzon,
Mark E. Mallett, Chris Markle, Randall Schwartz, Nigel Swinson,
Kjetil Torgrim Homme, and Rand Wacker for extensive corrections
and suggestions.
9. Authors' Addresses
Jutta Degener
5245 College Ave, Suite #127
Oakland, CA 94618
Email: jutta@pobox.com
Philip Guenther
Sendmail, Inc.
6425 Christie Ave, 4th Floor
Emeryville, CA 94608
Email: guenther@sendmail.com
10. Discussion
This section will be removed when this document leaves the
Internet-Draft stage.
This draft is intended as an extension to the Sieve mail filtering
language. Sieve extensions are discussed on the MTA Filters mailing
list at <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>. Subscription requests can
be sent to <ietf-mta-filters-request@imc.org> (send an email
message with the word "subscribe" in the body).
More information on the mailing list along with a WWW archive of
back messages is available at <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mta-filters/>.
10.1 Changes from draft-ietf-sieve-editheader-00.txt
Updated IPR boilerplate to RFC 3978/3979.
Many corrections in response to WGLC comments. Of particular note:
- correct a number of spelling and grammar errors
- document that neither addheader nor deleteheader affects the
implicit keep
- add normative references to RFC 2047 and RFC 2231
- it is not an error for deleteheader to affect nothing
- change "foo.tld" to "foo.example.com"
- add an informative reference to [VACATION], citing it as an
example of an action that examines header fields
- add weasel words about changes to fields that have secondary
effects
- add security consideration for combination of header changes
and "reject"
10.2 Changes from draft-degener-sieve-editheader-03.txt
Renamed to draft-ietf-sieve-editheader-00.txt;
tweaked the title and abstract.
Added Philip Guenther as co-author.
Updated IPR boilerplate.
10.3 Changes from draft-degener-sieve-editheader-02.txt
Changed the duplicate restrictions from "messages with different
headers MUST be considered different" to their direct opposite,
"messages with different headers MUST be considered the same,"
as requested by workgroup members on the mailing list.
Expanded mention of header signature schemes to Security
Considerations.
Added IANA Considerations section.
Appendices
Appendix A. Normative References
[IMAIL] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April
2001.
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for
Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047, November 1996.
[RFC2231] Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and
Encoded Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and
Continuations", RFC 2231, November 1997.
[SIEVE] Showalter, T., "Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language", RFC 3028,
January 2001.
Appendix B. Informative References
[VACATION] Showalter, T. and N. Freed, "Sieve Email Filtering:
Vacation Extension", draft-ietf-sieve-vacation-02,
April 2005
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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.
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 15:08:00 |