Email Authentication Status Codes
draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-03
| The information below is for an old version of the document |
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (appsawg WG)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2014-06-26
|
|
Replaces |
|
draft-kucherawy-email-auth-codes
|
|
Stream |
|
IETF
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
Proposed Standard
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
pdf
html
bibtex
|
|
Reviews |
|
|
| Stream |
WG state
|
|
In WG Last Call
|
|
Document shepherd |
|
Moonesamy S
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
Network Working Group M. Kucherawy
Internet-Draft June 26, 2014
Updates: 7208 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: December 28, 2014
Email Authentication Status Codes
draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-03
Abstract
There is at present no way to return a status code to an email client
that indicates a message is being rejected or deferred specifically
because of email authentication failures. This document registers
codes for this purpose.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 28, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
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.
Kucherawy Expires December 28, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Email Auth Status Codes June 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. New Status Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. DKIM Failure Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. SPF Failure Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Reverse DNS Failure Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Multiple Authentication Failures Code . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Kucherawy Expires December 28, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Email Auth Status Codes June 2014
1. Introduction
[RFC3463] introduced Enhanced Mail System Status Codes, and [RFC5248]
created an IANA registry for these.
[RFC6376] and [RFC7208] introduced, respectively, DomainKeys
Identified Mail and Sender Policy Framework, two protocols for
conducting email authentication. Another common email acceptance
test is the reverse Domain Name System check on an email client's IP
address, as described in Section 3 of [RFC7001].
The current set of enhanced status codes does not include any code
for indicating that a message is being rejected or deferred due to
local policy reasons related to any of these mechanisms. This is
potentially useful information to agents that need more than
rudimentary handling information about the reason a message was
rejected on receipt. This document introduces enhanced status codes
for reporting those cases to clients.
2. Key Words
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119].
3. New Status Codes
The following new status codes are defined:
3.1. DKIM Failure Codes
Code: X.7.20
Sample Text: No valid DKIM signature found
Associated basic status code: 5
Description: This status code is returned when a message
did not contain a valid DKIM signature,
contrary to local policy requirements.
(Note that this violates the advice of
Section 6.1 of RFC6376.)
Reference: [this document]; RFC6376
Submitter: M. Kucherawy
Show full document text