DMARC D. Crocker
Internet-Draft Brandenburg InternetWorking
Intended status: Standards Track July 27, 2020
Expires: January 28, 2021
Author Header Field
draft-crocker-dmarc-author-01
Abstract
Internet mail defines the From: field to indicate the author of the
message's content and the Sender: field to indicate who initially
handled the message. The Sender: field is optional, if it has the
same information as the From: field. That is, when the Sender: field
is absent, the From: field has conflated semantics, as both a
handling identifier and a content creator identifier. This was not a
problem, until development of stringent protections on use of the
From: field. It has prompted Mediators, such as mailing lists, to
modify the From: field, to circumvent mail rejection caused by those
protections.
This affects end-to-end behavior of email, between the author and the
final recipients, because mail from the same author is not treated
the same, depending on what path it followed. In effect, the From:
field has become dominated by its role as a handling identifier. The
current specification augments the current use of the From: field, by
specifying the Author: field, which identifies the original author of
the message and is not subject to modification by Mediators.
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 https://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 January 28, 2021.
Crocker Expires January 28, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DMARC July 2020
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
(https://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Author Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Registration of the Author header field . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
Internet mail conducts asynchronous communication from an author to
one or more recipients, and is used for ongoing dialogue amongst
them. Email has a long history of serving a wide range of human uses
and styles, within that simple framework, and the mechanisms for
making email robust and safe serve that sole purpose.
Internet mail defines the From: field to indicate the author of the
message's content and the Sender: field to indicate who initially
handled the message. [Mail-Fmt] The Sender: field is optional, if it
has the same information as the From: field. That is, when the
Sender: field is absent, the From: field has conflated semantics, as
both a handling identifier and a content creator identifier. These
fields were initially defined in [RFC733] and making the redundant
Sender: field optional was a small, obvious optimization, in the days
of slower communications, expensive storage and less powerful
computers.
Crocker Expires January 28, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DMARC July 2020
The dual semantics was not a problem, until development of stringent
protections on use of the From: field. It has prompted Mediators,
such as mailing lists, to modify the From: field, to circumvent mail
rejection caused by those protections. This affects end-to-end
usability of email, between the author and the final recipients,
because mail received from the same author is treated differently by
the recipient's software, depending on what path the message
followed.
By way of example, mail from "Example User <user@example.com>" which
is sent directly to a recipient, will show the user's display name
correctly and can correctly analyze and aggregate mail from that
user, based on their email address. However if the user sends
through a mailing list, and the mailing list conducts a common form
of From: modification, needed to bypass enforcement of stringent
authentication policies, then the received message might have a From:
field along the lines of "Example User via Example List
<listname@list.example.com>". The change inserts an operational
address, for the Mediator, into the From: field, and distorts the
field's display-name, as a means of recording the modification. The
result is that the recipient's software will see the message as being
from an entirely different author and will handle it separately.
(Mediators might create a Reply-To: field, with the original From:
field email address, but this does nothing to aid other processing
done by the recipient's MUA based on what it believes is the author's
address or original display-name.)
In effect, the From: field has become dominated by its role as a
handling identifier. The current specification augments the current
use of the From: field, by specifying the Author: field, which
identifies the original author of the message and is not subject to
modification by Mediators.
While it might be cleanest to move towards more reliable use of the
Sender: field and then to target it as the focus of authentication
concerns, enhancement of standards works best with incremental
additions, rather than efforts at replacement. To that end, this
specification provides a means of supplying author information that
is not subject to modification by processes seeking to enforce
stringent authentication.
Terminology and architectural details in this document are
incorporated from [Mail-Arch].
Discussion of this draft is directed to the dmarc@ietf.org mailing
list.
Crocker Expires January 28, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DMARC July 2020
2. Author Header Field
A new message header field is defined: Author:. It has the same
syntax as From:. [Mail-Fmt] As with the original and primary intent
for the From: header field, the Author: header field is to contain
the email address and can contain the displayable human name of the
author for the message content.
The ABNF for the field's syntax is:
author = "Author:" mailbox-list CRLF
This header field can be added as part of the original message create
process, or it can be added later, to preserve the original author
information from the From: field.
3. Discussion
The Author: header field, here, is intended for creation during
message generation or during mediation. It is intended for use by
recipient MUAs, as they typically use the From: field. In that
regard, it would be reasonable for an MUA that would normally
organize or display information based on the From: field to give the
Author: header field priority.
The X-Original-From: header field is referenced in [rfc5703] but is
not actually defined. Further, it is registered with IANA, but the
registry cites RFC5703 as the controlling source for the entry.
Lastly, the field is solely intended for use by Mediators, to
preserve information from a modified From:
Obviously any security-related processing of a message needs to
distinguish From: from Author: and treat their information
accordingly.
4. Security Considerations
Any header field containing identification information is a source of
security and privacy concerns, especially one pertaining to content
authorship. Generally, the handling of the Author: header field
needs to receive scrutiny and care comparable to that given to the
From: header field.
Given the semantics of this field, it is easy to believe that use of
this field will create a new attack vector for tricking end-users.
However, for all of the real and serious demonstration of users'
being tricked by deceptive or false content in a message, there is no
evidence that problematic content in a field providing information
Crocker Expires January 28, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DMARC July 2020
about message's author directly contributes to differential and
problematic behavior by the end user.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. Registration of the Author header field
Header field name: Author
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: provisional
Author/Change controller: *** ??? ***
Specification document(s): *** This document ***
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[IANA] M. Cotton, B. Leiba, and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", I-D
draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-11, 2017.
[Mail-Arch]
Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598, July
2009.
[Mail-Fmt]
Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
October 2008.
6.2. Informative References
[rfc5703] Hansen, T. and C. Daboo, "Sieve Email Filtering: MIME Part
Tests, Iteration, Extraction, Replacement, and Enclosure",
RFC 5703, October 2009.
[RFC733] Crocker, D., Vittal, J., Pogran, K., and D. Henderson,
"Standard for the Format of ARPA Network Text Messages",
RFC 733, November 1977.
Author's Address
Crocker Expires January 28, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DMARC July 2020
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
Email: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Crocker Expires January 28, 2021 [Page 6]