Internet Draft F. Gennai
Intended status: Standards track A. Shahin
Expires: December 2009 ISTI-CNR
C. Petrucci
A. Vinciarelli
CNIPA
June 2009
Certified Electronic Mail
draft-gennai-smime-cnipa-pec-03.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and 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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Abstract
Since 1997, the Italian Laws have recognized electronic delivery
systems as legally usable. In 2005 after two years of technical
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
tests, the characteristics of an official electronic delivery
service, named certified electronic mail (in Italian "Posta
Elettronica Certificata") were defined, giving the system legal
standing.
Design of the entire system was carried out by the National Center
for Informatics in the Public Administration of Italy (CNIPA),
followed by efforts for the implementation and testing of the
service. The CNIPA has given the Italian National Research Council
(CNR), and in particular The Institute of Information Science and
Technologies at the CNR (ISTI), the task of running tests on
providers of the service to guarantee the correct implementation and
interoperability. This document describes the certified email system
adopted in Italy. It represents the system as it is at the moment of
writing, following the technical regulations that were written based
upon the Italian Law DPR. November 2, 2005.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................. 3
1.1. Scope .................................................... 4
1.2. Notational Conventions ................................... 4
1.2.1. Requirement Conventions ........................... 4
1.2.2. Acronyms .......................................... 5
1.2.3. Terminology and Definitions ....................... 5
2. PEC model ..................................................... 9
2.1. System-generated messages ................................ 9
2.1.1. Message types .................................... 11
2.2. Basic structure ......................................... 13
2.2.1. Access point ..................................... 13
2.2.2. Incoming point ................................... 15
2.2.3. Delivery point ................................... 18
2.2.4. Storage .......................................... 18
2.2.5. Provider service mailbox ......................... 19
2.3. Log ..................................................... 19
3. Message processing ........................................... 20
3.1. Access point ............................................ 20
3.1.1. Formal checks on messages ........................ 20
3.1.2. Non-acceptance notification due to one or more
formal exceptions................................. 20
3.1.3. Non-acceptance notification due to virus detection 21
3.1.4. Acceptance notification .......................... 22
3.1.5. Transport envelope ............................... 23
3.1.6. Timeout delivery error notification .............. 24
3.2. Incoming point .......................................... 26
3.2.1. Take in charge notification ...................... 26
3.2.2. Anomaly envelope ................................. 27
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
3.2.3. Virus detection notification ..................... 29
3.2.4. Virus-induced delivery error notification ........ 30
3.3. Delivery point .......................................... 30
3.3.1. Checks on incoming messages ...................... 30
3.3.2. Delivery notification ............................ 31
3.3.3. Non-delivery notification ........................ 35
3.4. Sender and receiver belonging to the same domain ........ 36
3.5. Example: Complete transaction between 2 PEC domains ..... 36
4. Formats ...................................................... 37
4.1. Temporal reference ...................................... 37
4.2. User date/time .......................................... 37
4.3. Attachments ............................................. 37
4.3.1. Message body ..................................... 38
4.3.2. Original message ................................. 38
4.3.3. Certification data ............................... 38
4.4. Certification data scheme ............................... 38
4.5. PEC providers directory scheme .......................... 41
5. Security-related aspects ..................................... 48
5.1. Digital signature ....................................... 48
5.2. Authentication .......................................... 48
5.3. Secure interaction ...................................... 49
5.4. Virus ................................................... 50
5.5. S/MIME certificate ...................................... 50
5.5.1. Provider-related information (subject) ........... 50
5.5.2. Certificate extensions ........................... 50
5.5.3. Example .......................................... 51
5.6. PEC providers directory ................................. 56
6. PEC system client technical and functional prerequisites ..... 56
7. Security Considerations ...................................... 56
8. IANA Considerations .......................................... 57
9. References ................................................... 57
9.1. Normative References .................................... 57
10. Acknowledgments ............................................. 58
APPENDIX A: Italian fields and values in English ................ 59
Authors' Addresses .............................................. 60
1. Introduction
Since 1997, the Italian Laws have recognized electronic delivery
systems as legally usable. In 2005 after two years of technical
tests, the characteristics of an official electronic delivery
service, named certified electronic mail (in Italian Posta
Elettronica Certificata, from now on "PEC") were defined, giving
the system legal standing.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
1.1. Scope
To ensure secure transactions over the Internet, cryptography can
be associated with electronic messages in order to provide some
guarantee on sender identity, message integrity, confidentiality,
and non-repudiation of origin. Many end-to-end techniques exist to
accomplish such goals, and some offer a high level of security. The
downside of end-to-end cryptography is the need for an extensive
penetration of technology in society, because it is essential for
every user to have asymmetric keys and certificates signed by a
Certification Authority. Along with that, users would need to have
an adequate amount of knowledge regarding the use of such
technology.
PEC on the other hand uses applications running on servers to
digitally sign messages, thus avoiding the complexity end-to-end
systems bring about. By doing so, the user needs only have an
ordinary mail client with which to interact. The downside is that
the level of security drops, since the protection does not cover the
entire transaction. Nonetheless, application is simpler and does not
require specific user skills, making it easily more widespread among
users.
A provider for such a service MUST follow certain regulations and
undergo several tests of compatibility and interoperability before
it can be considered legally functional.
This document describes PEC's technical aspects and features. It
presents the details of the protocol and the messages that are sent
between service providers. It is meant to introduce the system
adopted by the Italian government for the exchange of certified
emails, giving them a legal standing equivalent to that of
Registered Mail with Return Receipt.
1.2. Notational Conventions
1.2.1. Requirement Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [REQ].
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
1.2.2. Acronyms
CMS: Cryptographic Message Syntax
CNIPA: Italian National Agency for Digital Administration
(Centro Nazionale per l'Informatica nella Pubblica
Amministrazione)
CNR: Italian National Research Council (Consiglio Nazionale
delle Ricerche)
CRL: Certificate Revocation List
CRL DP: Certificate Revocation List Distribution Point
DNS: Domain Name Service
DTD: Document Type Definition
FQDN: Fully Qualified Domain Name
ISTI: The Institute of Information Science and Technologies
at the CNR (Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie
dell'Informazione "A.Faedo")
LDAP: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
LDIF: LDAP Data Interchange Format
MIME: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
PEC: Certified Electronic Mail (Posta Elettronica Certificata)
S/MIME: Secure/MIME
SMTP: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
TLS: Transport Layer Security
XML: eXtensible Markup Language
1.2.3. Terminology and Definitions
Acceptance notification: Emitted by the sending access point to its
user upon the latter's request to send a PEC message. This occurs
when checks on said message pass, and serves to notify the user that
the provider will be taking care of sending the PEC message to its
intended destination(s). It contains certification data and is
signed using the sender PEC provider's key.
Access point: Is what interfaces the user to the rest of the PEC
system. It provides access services for user identification, as well
as sending and reading PEC messages. An access point also performs
virus checks (on outgoing messages), and inserts the original
message into a transport envelope. The messages it can emit are:
o acceptance notifications.
o non-acceptance notifications, either due to some formal exception
or virus presence.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
Anomaly envelope: When a message contains errors or is not a PEC
message it is inserted inside an anomaly envelope to highlight the
irregularity to the receiving user. The envelope is signed using the
receiver PEC provider's key.
Brief delivery notification: A type of delivery notification that
contains the original message, certification data, and hash values
of the attachments that were included in the original message, if
any.
Certification data: A set of data, certified by the sender's PEC
provider, that describes the original message. This data is inserted
in notifications and is transferred to the recipient, along with the
original message, inside a transport envelope.
Certification data includes: date and time of dispatch, sender email
address, recipient(s) email address(es), subject, and message ID.
Certified electronic mail: A service based on electronic mail, as
defined by the [SMTP] standard and its extensions, which permits the
transmission of documents produced with informatics tools.
Complete delivery notification: A type of notification that contains
delivery confirmation text and certification data, as well as the
entire original message.
Concise delivery notification: A type of notification that contains
delivery confirmation text and certification data only attached to
it.
Delivery point: Is the point that delivers PEC messages to the
intended recipient's PEC mailbox. It also runs checks on the source
and correctness of the message. The messages it can emit are:
o delivery notification.
o non-delivery notification.
All messages received by the delivery point are stored in the
recipient's mailbox.
Delivery notification: Emitted by the receiver delivery point to the
sender incoming point, which then forwards it to the sender delivery
point, upon insertion of the message inside the recipient's PEC
mailbox. A separate delivery notification is generated upon delivery
of the message to each different recipient indicated in the "To:"
and "Cc:" fields of said message. The notification is signed using
the receiver PEC provider's key.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
Holder: The person or organization to whom a PEC mailbox is
assigned.
Incoming point: Is the point that receives messages within a PEC
domain. Once received, it runs checks on origin and correctness,
inserts messages that contain errors in anomaly envelopes, checks
for the presence of viruses in incoming messages, and, when all
checks pass, forwards the received message to the delivery point
inside the same domain. The messages it can emit are:
o take in charge notifications (inter-provider acknowledgment);
o virus detection notifications;
o non-delivery notifications due to timeout;
o non-delivery notifications due to virus detection.
All messages received by the incoming point are forwarded to the
delivery point of the same domain.
Message sent: A PEC message is considered sent when the sender's PEC
provider, after several checks, accepts the email and returns an
acceptance notification to the sender.
Message received: A PEC message is considered received when it is
stored in the receiver's mailbox, after which the receiver PEC
provider returns a delivery notification to the sender.
Msgid: Is the message ID generated by the email client, as defined
in [EMAIL], before the message is submitted to the PEC system.
Non-acceptance notification: Emitted by the sender access point to
its user when it is impossible for it to accept the message. The
reason (either virus or formal exceptions detection) is indicated
within the notification text, which also explicitly informs the user
that the message will not be forwarded to the receiver. The
notification is signed using the sender PEC provider's key.
Non-delivery notification: Emitted by the PEC provider to the sender
of the original message, when message delivery is not possible, to
indicate the anomaly. Non-delivery can be caused by one of the
following 3 reasons:
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
o timeout; notification is generated by the sender incoming point
and sent to the sender delivery point.
o virus detection; notification is generated by the receiver
incoming point and sent to the sender incoming point.
o other reasons; such as disk quota exceeded, domain unknown or user
unknown. In this case, the notification is generated by the
receiver delivery point to the sender incoming point.
Original message: Is the user-generated message before its arrival
to the sender access point. The original message is delivered to the
recipient inside a transport envelope.
PEC domain: Corresponds to a DNS domain dedicated to the holders'
mailboxes.
PEC mailbox: An electronic mailbox for which delivery notifications
are issued upon reception of PEC messages. Such a mailbox can be
defined exclusively within a PEC domain.
PEC msgid: Is a unique identifier generated by the PEC system, which
will substitute the msgid.
PEC provider: The entity that handles one or more PEC domains with
their relative points of access, reception, and delivery. It is the
holder of the key that is used for signing notifications and
envelope, and it interacts with other PEC providers for
interoperability with other holders.
PEC provider's key: Is a key released by CNIPA to every PEC
provider. It is used to sign notifications and envelopes, and to
authorize access to the PEC providers directory.
PEC providers directory: Is an LDAP server positioned in an area
reachable by all PEC service providers. It constitutes the technical
structure related to the public list of PEC service providers, and
contains the list of PEC domains and service providers with relevant
certificates corresponding to the keys used for signing
notifications and transport envelopes.
Service mailbox: A mailbox for the sole use of the provider,
dedicated for the reception of take in charge and virus detection
notifications.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
Take in charge notification: Emitted by the receiver incoming point
to the sender's service mailbox -through the latter's incoming
point- to attest that the receiver PEC provider has taken
responsibility for message delivery. Certification data is inserted
within this notification to allow its association with the message
it refers to. It is then signed using the receiving PEC provider's
key.
Time stamp: A digital evidence with which a temporal reference, that
can be opposed by third parties, is attributed to one or more
documents.
Transport envelope: A message created by the sender access point, in
which the original message and related certification data are
inserted. It is signed using the sender PEC provider's key, and is
delivered, unmodified, to the receiving PEC mailbox. Thus, allowing
the verification of the certification data by the receiving user.
2. PEC model
2.1. System-generated messages
The PEC system generates messages in MIME format. They are composed
of a descriptive textual part and some other MIME parts, the number
and content of which varies according to the type of message
generated.
A system-generated message falls into one of the following
categories:
o Notifications;
o Envelopes.
The message is inserted in an S/MIME v3 structure in CMS format
and signed with the PEC provider's private key. The X.509v3
certificate associated with the key MUST be included in the
aforementioned structure. The S/MIME format used to sign system-
generated messages is the "multipart/signed" format (.p7s), as
described in section 3.4.3 of [SMIMEV3].
To guarantee the verifiability of signatures on as many mail clients
as possible, X.509v3 certificates used by certified email systems
MUST abide by the profile found in section 6.5.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
In order for the receiving mail client to verify the signature,
the sender address MUST coincide with the one indicated within the
X.509v3 certificate. For this mechanism, transport envelopes MUST
indicate in the "From:" field a sender address which is different
from the one contained in the original message. To allow for better
message usability by the receiving user, the sender's mail address
in the original message is inserted as a "display name".
For example, a "From:" field such as:
From: "John Smith" <john.smith@domain.com>
would result in the following "From:" value in the respective
transport envelope:
From: "On behalf of: john.smith@domain.com"
<certified-mail@provider.com>
In order for replies to be correctly sent back to the proper
destination, the "Reply-To:" field in the transport envelope MUST
contain the same unaltered value of the original message's
"Reply-To:" field. When it is not explicitly specified in the
original message, the system that generates the transport envelope
creates it by extracting the information from the "From:" field in
the original message.
When notifications are sent, the system MUST use the original
message sender's address as the destination address, as is specified
in the reverse path data of the SMTP protocol.
Notifications MUST be sent to the sender's PEC mailbox without
taking into account the "Reply-To:" field, which might be present
in the original message's header.
All system-generated PEC messages are identifiable for having a
specific header defined in PEC according to the type of message
generated.
To determine the certification data, the elements used for the
actual routing of the message are employed. In SMTP dialog phases,
the reverse path and forward path data ("MAIL FROM" and "RCPT TO"
commands) are thus considered certification data of both the sender
and the recipients respectively. Addressing data present in the
message body ("To:" and "Cc:" fields) are used solely in order to
discriminate between primary and carbon copy recipients when
necessary; addressing data present in the "Bcc:" field MUST be
considered invalid by the system.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
2.1.1. Message types
All system-generated messages inherit their header fields and values
from the original message, with extra fields added according to the
type of message generated.
2.1.1.1. Notifications
They have the purpose of informing the sending user and interacting
providers of the progress the message is making within the PEC
network.
2.1.1.1.1. Success notifications
Indicates an acknowledgment on the provider's side for the reception
or handling of a PEC message. More specifically, it can indicate one
of 3 situations: acceptance, take in charge, or delivery.
Added header fields are:
o X-Ricevuta
o X-Riferimento-Message-ID
The field "X-Ricevuta" (Notification) indicates the type of
notification contained in the message, whereas "X-Riferimento-
Message-ID" (Reference Message-ID) contains the message ID generated
by the mail client.
The body contents differ according to the notification type. This is
described more thoroughly in chapter 3.
o An acceptance notification informs the user that his provider has
accepted the message and will be taking care of passing it on to
the provider(s) of the addressee(s).
o A take in charge notification is an inter-provider communication
only, it MUST NOT be sent to the users. With this notification,
the receiving provider simply informs the sending one that it has
received a PEC message, and will take the responsibility of
forwarding it to the addressee(s). From then on, the sender
provider is no longer held responsible as to the whereabouts of
the message, but is limited to notifying its user of the success
or failure of delivery.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
o Delivery notifications take place as the final communication of a
transaction, indicating overall success in handing the message
over to the addressee(s).
2.1.1.1.2. Delay notifications
Delay notifications are sent out 12 hours after a message has been
dispatched from the sending provider, and no take in charge or
delivery notification was received. These have the sole purpose of
notifying the user of the delay.
If another 12 hours go by without any sign of a take in charge or
delivery notification (amounting to a 24-hour delay), another delay
notification is dispatched to the user informing him of the possible
delivery failure. The provider will not keep track of the delay any
further.
2.1.1.1.3. Failure notifications
They are sent when there is some error in transmission or reception.
More specifically, a failure notification can indicate either a
formal-exception error, or a virus detection.
Added header fields are:
o X-Ricevuta;
o X-Riferimento-Message-ID;
o X-VerificaSicurezza [optional]
"X-Ricevuta" (Notification) and "X-Riferimento-Message-ID"
(Reference Message-ID) have the same roles as indicated in section
2.1.1.1.1 (Success Notifications). "X-VerificaSicurezza" (Security
Verification) is an optional header field, used for virus-related
notifications.
Body contents differ according to notification type. This is
described more thoroughly in chapter 3.
2.1.1.2. PEC envelopes
Messages entering the PEC network are inserted within specific PEC
messages, called envelopes, before they are allowed to circulate
further within the network. These envelopes MUST inherit the
following header fields, along with their unmodified values, from
the message itself.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
o Received
o To
o Cc
o Return-Path
o Reply-to (if present)
Depending on the type of message requesting admission into the PEC
network, it will be inserted either in a "Transport Envelope", or in
a "Anomaly Envelope". Distinction will be possible through the
addition of the "X-Transport" header field.
2.2. Basic structure
+-------------+ +------------+
| +--+ | | |
| |AP| | | |
+----+ | +--+ | messages& | +---+ +--+ | +----+
|user|<-->| |<------------->| |InP| |DP| |<-->|user|
+----+ | +--+ +---+ | notifications | +---+ +--+ | +----+
| |DP| |InP| | | |
| +--+ +---+ | | |
+-------------+ +------------+
PEC PEC
sender receiver
provider provider
where:
AP = Access Point
DP = Delivery Point
InP = Incoming Point
2.2.1. Access point
This is what the user client at the sender side interacts with,
giving the user access to PEC services set up by the provider.
Such access MUST be preceded by user authentication on the system
(see section 6.2). The access point receives the original messages
its user wishes to send, runs some formal checks, and acts according
to the outcome:
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
o if the message passes all checks, the access point generates an
acceptance notification and inserts the original message inside a
transport envelope;
o if a formal exception is detected, the access point refuses the
message and emits the relevant non-acceptance notification (see
section 3.1.1);
o if a virus is detected, the access point generates a non-
acceptance notification and inserts the original message as is in
the provider's special store.
Generation of the acceptance notification indicates to the user that
the message was accepted by the system, certifying also the date and
time of the event. The notification MUST contain user-readable text,
and an XML part containing the certification data.
The notification MAY also contain other attachments for extra
features offered by the provider.
Using the data available in the PEC providers directory (see section
4.5), the access point runs checks on every recipient in the "To:"
and "Cc:" fields present in the original message to verify whether
they belong to the PEC infrastructure or to non-PEC domains. Such
checks are done by verifying the existence, through a case
insensitive search, of the recipients' domains in the
"managedDomains" attribute found within the PEC providers directory.
Therefore, the acceptance notification (and relevant certification
data) relates, for each address, the typology of its domain; PEC or
non-PEC.
The identifier (from now on PEC msgid) of accepted original messages
within the PEC infrastructure MUST be unambiguous in order to
consent correct tracking of messages and relative notifications. The
format of such an identifier is:
[alphanumeric string]@[provider mail domain]
or:
[alphanumeric string]@[FQDN mail server]
Therefore, both the original message and the corresponding transport
envelope MUST contain the following header field:
Message-ID: <[unique identifier]>
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
When an email client that is interacting with the access point has
already inserted a Message ID (from now on msgid) in the original
message, that msgid SHALL be substituted by a PEC msgid. In order to
allow the sender to link the message sent with the relative
notifications, the msgid MUST be inserted in the original message as
well as the relative notifications and transport envelope. If
present, the msgid is REQUIRED in the original message's header by
adding the following header field:
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: <[original Message ID]>
which will also be inserted in the transport envelope and
notifications, and related in the certification data (see section
4.4).
2.2.2. Incoming point
This point permits the exchange of PEC messages and notifications
between PEC providers. It is also the point through which ordinary
mail messages can be inserted within the system of certified mail.
The exchange of messages between providers takes place through
SMTP-based transactions, as defined in [SMTP]. If SMTP communication
errors occur, they MAY be handled using the standard error
notification mechanisms, as provided by SMTP in [SMTP] and
[SMTP-DSN]. The same mechanism is also adopted for handling
transitory errors, that result in long idling periods, during an
SMTP transmission phase. In order to guarantee that an error is
returned to the user as defined in section 3.3.3, the systems that
handles PEC traffic MUST adopt a time limit for message idleness
equal to 24 hours.
Once a message arrives, the incoming point runs the following list
of checks and operations:
o verifies correctness and type of the incoming message;
o if the incoming message is a correct and undamaged transport
message:
- emits a take in charge notification towards the sender provider
(section 3.2.1);
- forwards the transport envelope to the delivery point (section
3.3).
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
o if the incoming message is a correct and undamaged notification:
- forwards the notification to the delivery point.
o if the incoming message does not conform to the prerequisites of a
correct and undamaged transport envelope or notification, but
comes from a PEC provider, i.e. passes the verifications regarding
existence, origin, and validity of the signature, then the message
MUST be propagated towards the recipient.
Therefore, the incoming point:
- inserts the incoming message in an anomaly envelope (section
3.2.2);
- forwards the anomaly envelope to the delivery point.
o if the incoming message does not originate from a PEC system, i.e.
fails verifications regarding existence, origin, and validity of
the signature, then the message will be treated as ordinary email,
and, if propagated to the recipient:
- is inserted in an anomaly envelope (section 3.2.2);
- the anomaly envelope is forwarded to the delivery point.
The take in charge notification is generated by the receiving
provider and sent to the sending provider. Its purpose is to keep
track of the message in its transition from one provider to another,
and is therefore strictly intra-provider communication; the end user
knows nothing about it.
To check the correctness and integrity of a transport envelope or
notification, the incoming point runs the following tests:
o Signature existence - the system verifies the presence of an
S/MIME signature structure within the incoming message;
o Signature origin - the system verifies whether or not the
signature belongs to a PEC provider by extracting the certificate
used for signing and verifying its presence in the PEC providers
directory. To ease the check, it is possible to calculate the
certificate's SHA1 hash value and perform a case-insensitive
search of its hexadecimal representation within the
"providerCertificateHash" attribute found in the PEC providers
directory. This operation allows to easily identify the sender
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
provider for subsequent and necessary matching checks between the
extracted certificate and the one present in the provider's record;
o Signature validity - S/MIME signature correctness is verified by
recalculating the signature value, checking the entire
certification path, and verifying the CRL and temporal validity of
the certificate. In case some caching mechanism is used for CRL
contents, an update interval MUST be adopted so that the most up-
to-date data is guaranteed, thus minimizing the possible delay
between a publication revocation by the Certification Authority
and the variation acknowledgment by the provider;
o Formal correctness - the provider performs sufficient and
necessary checks to guarantee that the incoming message is
compliant with the formats specified in this document (transport
envelope and notifications).
If a virus-infected transport envelope passes the checks just
mentioned it is still considered correct and undamaged. The presence
of the virus will be detected in a second phase, during which the
contents of the transport envelope are verified. Thus, the incoming
point will refrain from forwarding the message to the recipient,
instead sending the appropriate notification of non-delivery and
storing the virus-infected message in the provider's special
storage.
In case ordinary mail messages are received, the PEC provider SHALL
perform virus checks in order to prevent the infiltration of
potentially dangerous mail messages within the PEC system. If a
virus is detected in an ordinary mail message, the latter can be
discarded at the incoming point before it enters the PEC system.
In other words, no special treatment is reserved for the error, but
a handling that is conformant to the procedures usually followed for
messages going through the Internet.
When a virus is detected inside a transport envelope during the
reception phase, the receiver's provider emits a virus detection
notification to the sender provider. The sender provider then MUST:
o check what virus typologies were not detected by its own
antivirus, to understand the motivations and verify the
possibility of interventions;
o send a virus-induced non-delivery notification to the sender.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
2.2.3. Delivery point
Is the point that receives messages from the incoming point and
forwards them to the final recipient.
It MUST run a series of tests on received messages before forwarding
them to the user (see section 3.3.1). It first verifies the typology
of the message, and decides whether or not a notification should be
issued to the sender. The delivery notification (section 3.3.2) is
emitted after the message was delivered to the recipient's PEC
mailbox and only at reception of a valid transport envelope, which
can be identifiable by the presence of the header attribute:
X-Trasporto: posta-certificata
In all other cases, such as anomaly envelopes and notifications,
the delivery notification is not emitted. Regardless, the message
received from the delivery point MUST be delivered unmodified to
the recipient's mailbox.
The delivery notification indicates to the sender that the message
sent was in fact conveyed to the specified recipient's mailbox, and
certifies the date and time of delivery through use of user-readable
text and an XML part containing certification data, along with other
possible attachments added for extra features offered by the
provider.
If the message received at the delivery point can't be delivered
to the destination mailbox, the delivery point emits a non-delivery
notification (section 3.3.3). This notification is generated when an
error relative to the delivery of a correct transport envelope is
encountered.
2.2.4. Storage
Each provider MUST dedicate a special storage for the deposition
of any virus-infected messages encountered. Whether the virus be
detected by the sender's access point or the receiver's incoming
point, the provider that detects it MUST store the mail message in
its own storage, and keep it for 30 months.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
2.2.5. Provider service mailbox
For exclusive use of the provider, dedicated to the reception of
notifications in 2 cases only:
o take in charge notifications; and
o virus detection notification.
2.3. Log
The server administrator MUST keep track of any and all operations
carried out in a specific message log file. The information kept in
the log for each operation is the following:
o message ID (the value present in the Message-ID header field in
the original message)
o date and time of event
o sender of original message
o recipient(s) of original message
o subject of original message
o event type (reception, delivery, notification emission, etc)
o Message-IDs of related generated messages
o sending provider
The service provider MUST store this data and preserve it
unmodified. Italian laws have specified that the service provider
retain the data for 30 months.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
3. Message processing
3.1. Access point
3.1.1. Formal checks on messages
When the access point receives a message the user wishes to send, it
MUST guarantee said message's formal conformity, verifying that the:
o message body contains a "From:" field holding a [EMAIL]-compliant
email address;
o message body contains a "To:" field holding one or more [EMAIL]-
compliant email addresses;
o sender's address, specified in the SMTP reverse path, coincides
with the one in the message's "From:" field;
o recipients' addresses specified in the SMTP forward path coincide
with the ones present in the "To:" or "Cc:" fields of the message;
o "Bcc:" field does not hold any value;
o total message size falls within the limits accepted by the
provider. Such limits apply depending on the number of recipients
as well; by multiplying it to the message size, the outcome MUST
fall within the limits accepted by the provider. Italian Laws have
specified this limit as being 30MB.
If the message does not pass the tests, the access point MUST NOT
accept the message within the PEC system, thus emitting the relative
notification of non-acceptance.
3.1.2. Non-acceptance notification due to one or more formal exceptions
When the access point cannot forward the message received, due to
failure in passing the formal checks, the sender is notified of such
an outcome. If the error is caused by the message failing size
checks, a non-acceptance notification is sent as long as the size
remains bound by a certain limit. If the size exceeds said limit,
error handling is left to SMTP.
The header for such a notification will contain the following
fields:
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
X-Ricevuta: non-accettazione
Date: [date of notification emission]
Subject: AVVISO DI NON ACCETTAZIONE: [original subject]
From: certified-mail@[mail domain]
To: [original sender]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [Message-ID of original message]
The body of this notification is composed of text that
constitutes the actual notification in readable format according
to a model that relates the following information:
Error in message acceptance
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), in the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to:
[recipient_1]
[recipient_2]
.
.
.
[recipient_n]
a problem was detected which prevents its acceptance due to
[error description].
The message was not accepted.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification information is inserted within an XML file
to be attached to the notification message, allowing automatic
checks on the message (section 4.4). The non-acceptance notification
MAY contain additional attachments included by the provider for
provider-specific services, regardless the original message MUST NOT
be attached.
3.1.3. Non-acceptance notification due to virus detection
If the access point receives virus-infected emails from its user,
it MUST NOT accept them, but notify the sender immediately of
dispatch impossibility instead.
The access point MUST run some tests on the content of the incoming
message and reject it if a virus is detected. In which case, a
virus-detection-induced non-acceptance notification MUST be emitted
to clearly communicate the reason of message refusal to the user.
For this non-acceptance notification the header contains the
following fields:
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
X-Ricevuta: non-accettazione
X-VerificaSicurezza: errore
Date: [notification emission date]
Subject: AVVISO DI NON ACCETTAZIONE PER VIRUS: [original
subject]
From: certified-mail@[mail_domain]
To: [original sender]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [Message-ID of original message]
The notification's body is composed of readable text according to
the following model:
Error in message acceptance due to virus presence
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), in the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to:
[recipient_1]
[recipient_2]
.
.
.
[recipient_n]
a security problem was detected [ID of detected content type].
The message was not accepted.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification data is inserted in an XML file added to the
notification to allow for automatic checks (section 4.4). The non-
acceptance notification MAY contain additional attachments included
by the provider for provider-specific services, regardless the
original message MUST NOT be attached.
3.1.4. Acceptance notification
The acceptance notification is a message sent to the sender,
containing date and time of acceptance, sender and recipient data,
and subject.
The header will contain the following fields:
X-Ricevuta: accettazione
Date: [actual date of acceptance]
Subject: ACCETTAZIONE: [original subject]
From: certified-mail@[mail_domain]
To: [original sender]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [Message-ID of original message]
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
The message body is composed of text that constitutes the
notification in readable format, according to a model that relates
the following information:
Acceptance notification
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to:
[recipient_1] (["certified mail" | "ordinary mail"])
[recipient_2] (["certified mail" | "ordinary mail"])
.
.
.
[recipient_n] (["certified mail" | "ordinary mail"])
was accepted by the system and forwarded to the recipient(s).
Message identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification information is inserted within an XML file
attached to the notification message, allowing automatic checks
on it (section 4.4). The acceptance notification MAY contain
additional attachments included by the provider for provider-
specific services.
3.1.5. Transport envelope
A transport envelope is a message generated by the access point
which contains the original message as well as certification data.
As was mentioned in section 2.1.1.2, the transport envelope inherits
from the original message the values of the following header fields,
which MUST be related unmodified:
o Received
o To
o Cc
o Return-Path
o Reply-To (if present)
On the other hand, the following fields MUST be modified, or
inserted if necessary:
X-Trasporto: posta-certificata
Date: [actual date of acceptance]
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
Subject: POSTA CERTIFICATA: [original subject]
From: "On behalf of: [original sender]"
<certified-mail@[mail_domain]>
Reply-To: [original sender] (inserted only if not already
present)
Message-ID: [PEC message ID generated as explained in 2.2.1]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [message ID of original message]
X-TipoRicevuta: [completa/breve/sintetica]
The "X-TipoRicevuta" field indicates the type of delivery
notification the sender wishes to receive - complete, brief, or
concise.
The body of the transport envelope is composed of text that
constitutes the readable format of the message, according to a
model that relates the following certification data:
Certified mail message
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), the message "[subject]" was
sent by "[original sender]" and addressed to:
[recipient_1]
[recipient_2]
.
.
.
[recipient_n]
The original message is included in attachment.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
Within the transport envelope, the entire, non-modified original
message is attached in a [EMAIL]-compliant format (except for what
has been said regarding the Message ID). In the same transport
envelope, another part is added, which is an XML part. It is easy to
perform checks on, and contains the certification data that was
already related in text format, as well as other information on the
type of message and type of notification requested (section 4.4).
The transport envelope MAY contain additional attachments included
by the provider for provider-specific services.
Note that the routing data of the transport envelope (forward and
reverse paths) remain unaltered.
3.1.6. Timeout delivery error notification
If the sending provider does not receive a take in charge or
delivery notification from the receiving provider within 12 hours
after message dispatch, it informs the user that the recipient's
provider might not be able to deliver the message. In case the
sending provider doesn't receive a delivery notification within
24 hours after message dispatch, it emits another non-delivery
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
notification to the user by the 24-hour timeout, but not before
22 hours have passed.
Such a communication takes place through a notification of non-
delivery due to timeout, the header of which contains the following
fields:
X-Ricevuta: preavviso-errore-consegna
Date: [date of notification emission]
Subject: AVVISO DI MANCATA CONSEGNA PER SUP. TEMPO MASSIMO:
[original subject]
From: certified-mail@[mail_domain]
To: [original recipient]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [Message-ID of original message]
The message body of the first non-delivery notification (12-hour
timeout) is composed of text that represents the readable format
of the notification, which will relate the following data:
Non-delivery notification
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), the message
"[subject]" originating from "[original sender]"
and addressed to "[recipient]"
has not been delivered within the first 12 hours following
its dispatch. Not excluding that the message might eventually
be delivered, it is deemed useful to consider that dispatch
might not have a positive outcome. The system will see to
sending another non-delivery notification if in the following
twelve hours no confirmation is received from the recipient.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
On the other hand, 24-hour-timeout induced notifications, who have
the same header as described above, will have the following text in
their body:
Non-delivery notification
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), the message
"[subject]" originating from "[original sender]"
and addressed to "[recipient]"
has not been delivered within 24 hours of its dispatch.
The transaction is deemed to be considered terminated with a
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
negative outcome.
Massage identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification data is inserted in an XML file and attached
to both notification types to allow automatic checks (section 4.4).
Within the notification other attachments MAY be present for
specific functionalities supplied by the PEC provider; nonetheless
the original message MUST NOT be included.
A timeout notification is generated if one of the following
scenarios occurs:
o the sending provider receives a take in charge notification during
the first 12 hours following message dispatch, but does not
receive a delivery notification at all. In this case it would be a
24-hour timeout notification.
o the sending provider does not receive a take in charge
notification, but receives a delivery notification after 12 hours
and before the 24-hour timeout. In this case it would be a 12-hour
timeout notification.
o the sending provider doesn't receive either a take in charge
notification nor a delivery notification. In this case 2 timeout
notifications are generated; a 12-hour and a 24-hour timeout
notification.
3.2. Incoming point
3.2.1. Take in charge notification
When correct PEC transport envelopes (as defined in section 2.2.2.)
are exchanged between PEC providers, the receiver MUST dispatch a
take in charge notification to the sender. The dispatched take in
charge notifications concern all recipients to whom the incoming
message was addressed, as stated in the routing data (forward and
reverse paths) of the SMTP transaction. Within the certification
data of a single take in charge notification, all recipients of the
message to which it refers are listed. In general, when receiving a
transport envelope, each provider MUST emit one or more take in
charge notifications in order to cover, in absence of SMTP transport
errors, all the recipients in its jurisdiction.
The header of a take in charge notification contains the following
fields:
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
X-Ricevuta: presa-in-carico
Date: [date of take in charge]
Subject: PRESA IN CARICO: [original subject]
From: certified-mail@[mail_domain]
To: [sender provider service mailbox]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [Message-ID of original message]
The provider's service mail address is obtained from the PEC
providers directory during the necessary queries made in the
signature verification stage.
The notification body is constructed following the underlying model:
take in charge notification
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to:
[recipient_1] (["certified mail" | "ordinary mail"])
[recipient_2] (["certified mail" | "ordinary mail"])
.
.
.
[recipient_n] (["certified mail" | "ordinary mail"])
was accepted by the system.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification data is inserted in an XML file which is
added to the notification message to allow for automatic checks
(section 4.4). The take in charge notification MAY contain
additional attachments included by the provider for provider-
specific services.
3.2.2. Anomaly envelope
If the tests on an incoming message detect an error, or the message
is identified as being ordinary mail and the provider is set to
forward it to the recipient, the system MUST insert such a message
in an anomaly envelope. Before delivery, the entire message received
at the incoming point is inserted in an [EMAIL]-compliant format as
an attachment inside a new message that MUST inherit the values for
the following header fields unmodified from the received message:
o Received
o To
o Cc
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
o Return-Path
o Message-ID
Whereas, the following header fields MUST be modified or inserted:
X-Trasporto: errore
Date: [message arrival date]
Subject: ANOMALIA MESSAGGIO: [original subject]
From: "On behalf of: [original sender]"
<certified-mail@[mail_domain]>
Reply-To: [original sender (inserted only if not already
present)]
The body is composed of user-readable text according to a model
that relates the following data:
Message anomaly
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to:
[recipient_1]
[recipient_2]
.
.
.
[recipient_n]
was received.
The data has not been certified due to the following error:
[concise description of error]
The original message is attached.
Due to uncertainty regarding origin and/or conformity of the message
received, the anomaly envelope MUST NOT contain attachments other
than the entire message that arrived at the incoming point.
Note that the routing data of such an envelope (forward and reverse
paths) remain unaltered. Doing so guarantees both the forwarding of
the message to the recipients, and the reception of SMTP error
notifications, if any occur, by the sender (as specified in [SMTP] &
[SMTP-DSN]).
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
3.2.3. Virus detection notification
If the incoming point receives virus-infected PEC messages, it MUST
NOT forward them, rather it MUST inform the sending provider, which
will in turn inform the sending user, of the failed transmission.
A separate notification of virus detection MUST be sent on behalf of
every recipient within the provider's domain.
In case a virus is detected during the reception phase of a message
whose origin was asserted through sender signature verification,
the system generates a virus-detected notification, indicating the
error found, and sends it to the sending provider's service mailbox.
For this kind of notification, the header contains the following
fields:
X-Ricevuta: rilevazione-virus
X-Sender: [original sender]
Date: [date of notification emission]
Subject: PROBLEMA DI SICUREZZA: [original subject]
From: certified-mail@[mail_domain]
To: [sender provider notifications]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [Message-ID of original message]
The body is composed of readable text according to a model which
relates the following data:
Virus detection notification
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), in the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to
"[recipient]"
a security problem was detected [ID of content type detected].
Message identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification data is inserted in an XML file and attached
to the notification to allow for automatic checks (section 4.4).
The virus detection notification MAY contain additional attachments
included by the provider for provider-specific services, regardless
the original message MUST NOT be included.
The message body MUST contain the reason for which the transmission
could not be completed.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
3.2.4. Virus-induced delivery error notification
At the arrival of a virus detected notification from the receiving
provider, the sender provider emits a non-delivery notification to
the sending user.
The header for this notification contains the following fields:
X-Ricevuta: errore-consegna
X-VerificaSicurezza: errore
Date: [date of notification emission]
Subject: AVVISO DI MANCATA CONSEGNA PER VIRUS: [original
subject]
From: certified-mail@[mail_domain]
To: [original sender]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [Message-ID of original message]
The body is composed of readable text according to the following
data:
Delivery error notification due to virus
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), in the message "[subject]"
addressed to "[recipient]"
a security problem was detected [ID of content type detected
by the anti-virus].
The message was not delivered.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
All the information necessary for the construction of such a
notification can be obtained from the correlated virus-detected
notification.
The same certification data is inserted in an XML file and attached
to the notification message to allow for automatic checks (section
4.4). The notification MAY contain additional attachments included
by the provider for provider-specific services. The reason why the
transaction was not completed MUST be specified within the message
body.
3.3. Delivery point
3.3.1. Checks on incoming messages
When a message arrives at the delivery point, the system verifies:
O message type
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
O whether or not a notification has to be returned to the sender.
3.3.2. Delivery notification
A delivery notification is issued only after a correct PEC transport
envelope has been delivered to the recipient's mailbox.
The transport envelope can be easily determined from the presence
of the following header field:
X-Trasporto: posta-certificata
In all other cases (e.g. anomaly envelopes, notifications), the
delivery notification is not issued. Regardless, the message
received at the delivery point MUST be delivered to the recipient's
mailbox unchanged.
This notification tells the user that his/her message has been
successfully delivered to the specified recipient. It includes
readable text, that certifies the date and time of delivery, sender
and receiver data, and the subject. It also contains an XML
certification data file, and other optional attachments for
functionalities offered by the provider.
The following fields are inserted in the header:
X-Ricevuta: avvenuta-consegna
Date: [delivery date]
Subject: CONSEGNA: [original subject]
From: certified-mail@[mail_domain]
To: [original sender]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [Message-ID of original message]
The value of the "X-TipoRicevuta" header field in the transport
envelope is derived from the original message, thus allowing the
sender to determine the type of delivery notification requested
from the primary recipients of the original message.
3.3.2.1. Delivery notification: complete
This is the default value for delivery notifications. When no value
for the "X-TipoRicevuta" is specified, or when it contains the value
"complete", the system will require a complete delivery notification
from addressees in the "To:" field, while a concise notification
(section 3.3.2.3) will be required from those in the "Cc:" field.
The distinction between primary recipients and those
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
in carbon copy is done through an analysis of the "To:" and "Cc:"
fields. For notifications sent on behalf of primary recipients, a
complete copy of the original message along with any attachments
is inserted in the notification. In case the system in charge of
delivery is not able to determine the recipient type due to
ambiguity problems in the "To:" and "Cc:" fields, delivery MUST be
considered as if addressed to a primary recipient and include the
complete copy of the original message.
The notification body is composed of readable text according to a
model that relates the following certification data:
Delivery notification
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to
"[recipient]"
was placed in the destination's mailbox.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification data is inserted in an XML file and attached
to the notification (section 4.4), along with any other attachments
that MAY be inserted by the provider for provider-specific services.
The delivery notification MUST be issued on the behalf of every
recipient of the message.
3.3.2.2. Delivery notification: brief
In order to decrease the amount of data flowing, it is possible
for the sender to ask for a delivery notification in "brief" format.
The brief delivery notification contains the original message and a
ciphered hash value of each attachment. To be able to verify the
transmitted contents, it is necessary for the sender to keep the
unaltered original copy of the attachment(s), to which the hash
values refer.
If the transport envelope contains the header
X-TipoRicevuta: breve
the delivery point emits a brief delivery notification on behalf
of the primary recipients, and a concise one (section 3.3.2.3) on
behalf of carbon copy recipients. The value of the header in the
transport envelope is derived from the original message.
The notification body is composed of readable text according to a
model that relates the following certification data:
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
Brief delivery notification
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to
"[recipient]"
was placed in the destination's mailbox.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification data is inserted in an XML file and attached
to the notification (section 4.4), along with other optional
attachments specific to provider-supplied functionalities. The
delivery notification is issued on behalf of every recipient of the
message.
The MIME structure of the original message is unaltered as it is
attached to the notification, but its attachment(s) are substituted
with as many text files as the attachments are, each containing the
hash value of the file it substitutes. The attachments are
identified through the presence of the "name" parameter in the
header "content-type", or "filename" in the header "content-
disposition" of the MIME part.
When the original message has an S/MIME format, it is necessary
not to alter the integrity of the message structure. Verification
of the S/MIME message in the original message takes place when
the MIME type of the top-level entity (which coincides with the
message itself) is checked. An S/MIME message MAY have the following
MIME types (as per [SMIMEV3]):
o multipart/signed
Represents an original message signed by the sender using the
structure described in [MIME-SECURE]. The message is made up of 2
MIME parts: the first is the message itself before the application
of the sender's signature, whereas the second contains signature
data. The second part (generally of type "application/pkcs7-
signature" or "application/x-pkcs-signature") contains data added
during the signing phase and MUST be left unchanged to avoid
compromising the overall message structure;
o "application/pkcs7-mime" or "application/x-pkcs7-mime"
The message is composed of a sole CMS object within the MIME part.
Given that attachments cannot be separated from the CMS object,
the MIME part is left intact (i.e., it is not replaced by the hash
value); therefore, the brief notification is the same as the
complete notification.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
If the original message contains attachments whose content-type
is "message/rfc822", i.e. contains an email message as attachment,
the entire attached message is substituted with its corresponding
hash value.
Therefore, when emitting a brief delivery notification, the provider
MUST:
1. Identify and extract all the attachments from the first MIME
part of the multipart/signed S/MIME message;
2. calculate the hash values of all the files attached by the sender
to the original message;
3. substitute originals with their hash values.
In general, in the case of original messages in S/MIME format, the
copy of the message inserted within the brief delivery notification
will have the following characteristics:
o if the original message is signed, the S/MIME structure and
signature-relative data will remain unchanged. The message will
generate an error in a future signature integrity verification
phase following the substitution of attachments with the
corresponding hash values.
o if the original message contains the "application/pkcs7-mime" or
"application/x-pkcs7-mime" MIME type, attachments present in the
message will not be substituted by their hash values, due to
impossibility of identification within a CMS structure.
The content of the brief delivery notification will coincide with
that of a normal delivery notification.
The algorithm used for hash calculation is the [SHA1], calculated on
the entire content of the attachment. To allow distinction between
hash files and the files to which they refer, the suffix ".hash" is
added to the original filename. The hash value is written in the
file using a hexadecimal representation as a single sequence of 40
characters. The MIME type of these attachments is set to
"text/plain" to highlight their textual nature.
3.3.2.3. Delivery notification: concise
If the transport envelope contains the header
X-TipoRicevuta: sintetica
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
the delivery point emits, both to primary and carbon copy
recipients, a concise delivery notification that does not contain
the original message.
The message body of the notification is composed of readable text
according to a model that relates the following certification data:
Concise delivery notification
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to
"[recipient]"
was placed in the destination's mailbox.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification data is inserted within an XML file and
attached to the notification (section 4.4), along with additional
attachments that MAY be included by the provider for provider-
specific services. The notification is sent to each one of the
recipients to whom the message is delivered.
The concise delivery notification follows the same emission rules as
the delivery notification; attached to it is the XML file which
contains the certification data only, without the original message.
3.3.3. Non-delivery notification
If an error occurs during the delivery of a correct PEC transport
message, the system returns to the sender a non-delivery
notification that indicates the error condition.
The header will contain the following fields:
X-Ricevuta: errore-consegna
Date: [date of notification emission]
Subject: AVVISO DI MANCATA CONSEGNA: [original subject]
From: certified-mail@[mail_domain]
To: [original sender]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [Message-ID of original message]
The notification body is composed of readable text according to a
model that relates the following data:
Non-delivery notification
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), in the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
"[recipient]"
an error was detected.
The message was refused by the system.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification data is inserted within an XML file and
added to the notification in order to allow for automatic checks
(section 4.4). The non-delivery notification MAY contain additional
attachments included by the PEC provider for provider-specific
services.
3.4. Sender and receiver belonging to the same domain
PEC messages MUST be processed even if both sender and receiver(s)
belong to the same PEC domain.
3.5. Example: Complete transaction between 2 PEC domains
A correct transaction between two PEC domains goes through the
following steps:
o The sending user sends an email to his provider's Access Point;
o The Access Point runs all checks and emits an acceptance
notification to the user;
o The Access Point creates a transport envelope and forwards it to
the Incoming Point of the receiving provider;
o The receiver's Incoming Point verifies the transport envelope and
creates a take in charge notification to be sent to the sending
provider;
o The sender's Incoming Point verifies the validity of the take in
charge notification and forwards it to the Delivery Point;
o The sender's Delivery Point saves the take in charge notification
in the provider's service mailbox;
o The receiver's Incoming Point forwards the transport envelope to
the receiver's Delivery Point;
o The receiver's Delivery Point verifies the contents of the
transport envelope and saves it in the recipient's mailbox;
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
o The receiver's Delivery Point creates a delivery notification and
sends it to the sender's Incoming Point;
o The sender's Incoming Point verifies the validity of the delivery
notification and forwards it to the sender's Delivery Point;
o The sender's Delivery Point saves the delivery notification in the
sending user's mailbox;
o The receiving user has the message at his disposition.
4. Formats
4.1. Temporal reference
For all operations carried out during message, notification, and
log elaboration processes by the access, incoming and delivery
points, it is necessary to have an accurate temporal reference
available. All events (generation of notifications, transport
envelopes, logs, etc) that constitute the transaction of message
elaboration at the access, incoming, and delivery points MUST employ
a sole temporal value obtained from within the transaction itself.
Doing this renders the instant of message elaboration unambiguous
within logs, notifications, messages, etc, generated by the server.
4.2. User date/time
Temporal indications supplied by the service in readable format
(text in notifications, transport envelopes, etc) are provided
with reference to the legal time at the moment of the operation.
The date employs the format, "dd/mm/yyyy", whereas the hour uses
the format, "hh:mm:ss", where "hh" is in 24hour format. The date
and time are followed by the time zone, i.e. the difference (hours
and minutes) between local time and UTC, inserted between
parentheses. Representation of such a value is in the "[+|-]hhmm"
format, where the first character indicates a positive or negative
difference.
4.3. Attachments
This section describes the characteristics of the various components
of messages and notifications generated by a PEC system. If one of
the message parts contains characters with
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
values outside of the interval 0-127 (7-bit ASCII), that part will
have to be adequately encoded so that 7-bit transportation
compatibility is guaranteed (e.g. quoted-printable, base64).
4.3.1. Message body
Character set: ISO-8859-1 (Latin-1)
MIME type: text/plain or multipart/alternative
The multipart/alternative MIME type MAY be used to add an HTML
version of the body of messages generated by the system. In this
case, two sub-parts MUST be present: one of type text/plain, the
other text/html. For the HTML part:
o it MUST contain the same information as related in the text part;
o it MUST NOT contain references to elements (e.g. images, sounds,
font, style sheets) neither internal to the message (added MIME
parts) nor external (e.g. hosted on the provider's server);
o MUST NOT have active content (e.g. JavaScript, VBscript, Plug-in,
ActiveX).
4.3.2. Original message
MIME type: message/rfc822
Attachment name: certmail.eml
4.3.3. Certification data
Character set: UTF-8
MIME type: application/xml
Attachment name: certdata.xml
4.4. Certification data scheme
Following is the DTD relative to the XML file that contains
certification data attached to the notifications.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Use the element "postacert" as root-->
<!--"tipo" indicates the typology of the PEC message-->
<!--The attribute "errore" can have the following values-->
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
<!--"nessuno" = no error-->
<!--"no-dest" (with type="errore-consegna") = -->
<!-- wrong recipient-->
<!--"no-dominio" (with type="errore-consegna") = -->
<!-- wrong domain-->
<!--"virus" (with type="errore-consegna") = virus-->
<!--"virus" (with type="non-accettazione") = virus-->
<!--"altro" = generic error-->
<!ELEMENT postacert (intestazione, dati)>
<!ATTLIST postacert
tipo (accettazione |
non-accettazione |
presa-in-carico |
avvenuta-consegna |
posta-certificata |
errore-consegna |
preavviso-errore-consegna |
rilevazione-virus) #REQUIRED
errore (nessuno |
no-dest |
no-dominio |
virus |
altro) "nessuno">
<!--Header of the original message-->
<!ELEMENT intestazione (mittente,
destinatari+,
risposte,
oggetto?)>
<!--Sender ("From" field) of the original message-->
<!ELEMENT mittente (#PCDATA)>
<!--Complete list of recipients ("To" and "Cc" fields)-->
<!--of the original message-->
<!--"tipo" indicates the typology of the recipient-->
<!ELEMENT destinatari (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST destinatari
tipo (certificato | esterno) "certificato">
<!--Value of the "Reply-To" field of the original message-->
<!ELEMENT risposte (#PCDATA)>
<!--Value of the "Subject" field of the original message-->
<!ELEMENT oggetto (#PCDATA)>
<!--PEC message data-->
<!ELEMENT dati (gestore-emittente,
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
data,
identificativo,
msgid?,
ricevuta?,
consegna?,
ricezione*,
errore-esteso?)>
<!--Descriptive string of the provider that certifies -->
<!--the data-->
<!ELEMENT gestore-emittente (#PCDATA)>
<!--Date/time of message elaboration-->
<!--"zona" is the difference between local time and UTC in -->
<!--"[+|-]hhmm" format-->
<!ELEMENT data (giorno, ora)>
<!ATTLIST data
zona CDATA #REQUIRED>
<!--Day in "dd/mm/yyyy" format-->
<!ELEMENT giorno (#PCDATA)>
<!--Local hour in "hh:mm:ss" format-->
<!ELEMENT ora (#PCDATA)>
<!--PEC msgid-->
<!ELEMENT identificativo (#PCDATA)>
<!--msgid of the original message before modifications-->
<!ELEMENT msgid (#PCDATA)>
<!--For transport envelopes and delivery notifications-->
<!--indicate the type of notification requested by the-->
<!-sender-->
<!ELEMENT ricevuta EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST ricevuta
tipo (completa |
breve |
sintetica ) #REQUIRED>
<!--For delivery, non-delivery, virus-induced non-delivery, -->
<!-- virus detection, and timeout notifications-->
<!--Recipient address to which delivery has been carried -->
<!--out/tried-->
<!ELEMENT consegna (#PCDATA)>
<!--For take in charge notifications-->
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
<!--recipients for whom it is the relative notification-->
<!ELEMENT ricezione (#PCDATA)>
<!--In case of error-->
<!--brief description of the error-->
<!ELEMENT errore-esteso (#PCDATA)>
4.5. PEC providers directory scheme
The PEC providers directory is created through a centralized LDAP
server that contains providers' data and their corresponding PEC
mail domains. The directory's base root is "o=certmail", and the
"DistinguishedName" of single records are of the type,
"providerName=<name>, o=certmail". Search within the directory is
carried out mainly in case-sensitive mode using the
"providerCertificateHash" attributes (during envelope signature
verification phase) or "managedDomains" (during message acceptance
phase). It is possible for the record of a single provider to
contain multiple "providerCertificate", and the corresponding
"providerCertificateHash", attributes in order to allow the handling
of the renewal of expiring certificates. The provider MUST make sure
to update its own record sufficiently beforehand with respect to
the expiration date of the certificate, by adding a new certificate
whose validity overlaps with that of the previous one. The
"LDIFLocationURL" attribute MUST point to an HTTPS object supplied
by the provider, and containing an LDIF file according to [LDIF]. To
guarantee authenticity, the file MUST be signed by the provider for
the operations regarding its PEC services. The LDIF file, the
signature, and the X.509v3 certificate MUST be inserted in a PKCS#7
structure in binary ASN.1 DER format as a file with ".p7m"
extension. The centralized LDAP system downloads such a file on a
daily basis, and, after opportune verifications of the appended
signature, it applies it to the record relative to the provider.
The LDIF file that encompasses the data of all the PEC providers
is available, signed using the method described for single providers
as an HTTPS object, and can be found at the URL to which the
"LDIFLocationURL" attribute in the "dn: o=certmail" record points.
Through the LDIF file, single providers HAVE TO keep a local copy of
the directory, updated on a daily basis, in order to improve system
performance by avoiding continuous request dispatches to the central
system for every message elaboration phase.
It is possible for the provider to define several distinct records
to indicate different secondary, administered operating
environments. Every record refers to a single secondary operating
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
environment for which it is possible to declare specific attributes,
and if need be distinct from those relative to other environments
and to the main environment. All records MUST contain the name of
the provider in the "providerName" attribute, whereas the
"providerUnit" attribute is used to identify the secondary operating
environments. The "DistinguishedName" of the records relative to the
secondary operating environments are of the type
"providerUnit=<environment>,providerName=<name>,o=certmail". Every
provider MUST have a record associated to its own main environment,
distinguishable for the absence of the "providerUnit" attribute
within the record and the DistinguishedName. Records for secondary
environments MUST contain the "LDIFLocationURL" attribute, which
is obtained from the main environment's attribute for all records
connected to the provider. If secondary environments are present,
the LDIF found in the main environment's record MUST hold the
contents of all the provider-relevant records.
Following are the attributes defined for the scheme of the PEC
providers directory:
- providerCertificateHash: IA5 string
Hexadecimal representation of the hash in SHA1 format of the
X.509v3 certificate used by the provider for notifications and
PEC envelope signatures.
- providerCertificate: Certificate Binary transfer
Certificate(s) used by the provider for signing notifications and
transport envelopes.
- providerName: Directory string Single value
Name of PEC provider.
- mailReceipt: IA5 string Single value
Email address to which take in charge notifications and virus
detection notifications are sent.
- managedDomains: IA5 string
PEC domains handled by the provider.
- LDIFLocationURL: Directory string Single value
HTTPS URL where the definition of the record related to the
provider is maintained in LDIF format. When the attribute is
present in the record "dn: o=postacert", then it contains the
definition of the entire directory in LDIF format.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
- providerUnit: Directory string Single value
Name of the secondary operating environment (not available for
the principal environment)
Next is the LDAP scheme for the PEC providers directory according
to the syntax described in [LDAP]:
attributetype ( 16572.2.2.1
NAME 'providerCertificateHash'
DESC 'Hash SHA1 of X.509 certificate in hexadecimal
format'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26{40} )
attributetype ( 16572.2.2.2
NAME 'providerCertificate'
DESC 'X.509 certificate in ASN.1 DER binary format'
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.8 )
attributetype ( 16572.2.2.3
NAME 'providerName'
DESC 'PEC provider'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{32768}
SINGLE-VALUE )
attributetype ( 16572.2.2.4
NAME 'mailReceipt'
DESC 'E-mail address of the service mailbox'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
SUBSTR caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26{256}
SINGLE-VALUE )
attributetype ( 16572.2.2.5
NAME 'managedDomains'
DESC 'Domains handled by the PEC provider'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
SUBSTR caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 )
attributetype ( 16572.2.2.6
NAME 'LDIFLocationURL'
DESC 'URL of the LDIF file that defines the entry'
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
EQUALITY caseExactMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
SINGLE-VALUE )
attributetype ( 16572.2.2.7
NAME 'providerUnit'
DESC 'Name of the secondary operative environment'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{32768}
SINGLE-VALUE )
objectclass ( 16572.2.1.1
NAME 'LDIFLocationURLObject'
DESC 'Class for the insertion of a LDIFLocationURL
attribute'
MAY ( LDIFLocationURL )
SUP top AUXILIARY )
objectclass ( 16572.2.1.2
NAME 'provider'
DESC 'PEC provider'
SUP top
MUST ( providerCertificateHash $
providerCertificate $
providerName $
mailReceipt $
managedDomains)
MAY ( description $
LDIFLocationURL $
providerUnit) )
The following LDIF file represents an example of a providers'
directory, containing a base root and 2 fictitious providers. The
inserted certificates are two self-signed certificates used for
example purposes only:
dn: o=postacert
objectclass: top
objectclass: organization
objectClass: LDIFLocationURLObject
o: postacert
LDIFLocationURL: https://igpec.rupa.it/igpec.ldif.p7m
description: Base root for the PEC providers directory
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
dn: providerName=Anonymous Certified Mail S.p.A.,o=postacert
objectclass: top
objectclass: provider
providerName: Anonymous Certified Mail S.p.A.
providerCertificateHash:
7E7AEF1059AE0F454F2643A95F69EC3556009239
providerCertificate;binary::
MIIDBjCCAm+gAwIBAgIBADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBmMQswCQYDVQQGEw
JJVDEpMCcGA1UEChMgQW5vbmltYSBQb3N0YSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0YSBTLnAu
QS4xLDAqBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWHXBvc3RhLWNlcnRpZmljYXRhQGFucG9jZX
J0Lml0MB4XDTAyMTIwOTE3MjQxNVoXDTAzMTIwOTE3MjQxNVowZjELMAkG
A1UEBhMCSVQxKTAnBgNVBAoTIEFub25pbWEgUG9zdGEgQ2VydGlmaWNhdG
EgUy5wLkEuMSwwKgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFh1wb3N0YS1jZXJ0aWZpY2F0YUBh
bnBvY2VydC5pdDCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEAr8J+qK
KdxV9LzDMPqwnEy0P8H/KwbI0Szs8p6UZajZdpeUK0Ncbrv1QyXZNNtSMC
2uL09HDyx8agjgZWdhypnehguiSK3busha15RSpMGhiqxmz2b0HhOG73Gf
alZelqrwqmElna4MNUaLhbOvTd/sqPUS378w5IaIhWxzy34XcCAwEAAaOB
wzCBwDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUN8lC0znQWEs0xspZ/aBzsaGvRZMwgZAGA1UdIw
SBiDCBhYAUN8lC0znQWEs0xspZ/aBzsaGvRZOhaqRoMGYxCzAJBgNVBAYT
AklUMSkwJwYDVQQKEyBBbm9uaW1hIFBvc3RhIENlcnRpZmljYXRhIFMucC
5BLjEsMCoGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYdcG9zdGEtY2VydGlmaWNhdGFAYW5wb2Nl
cnQuaXSCAQAwDAYDVR0TBAUwAwEB/zANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQA58B
Z+q1qSKpuffzTBpMtbeFkDIxMqMa+ycnxdMNvcWgCm1A9ZiFJsvqYhDDqA
XxfHjkrzXuSZkYq6WiQCsLp0aYVy40QCIwbOunhrvsxh3vsG5CgN76JzZ9
5Z/1OCFNhLfqf1VH2NSS8TaYCCi/VO7W1Q1KkcA2VlxlQP7McSUw==
mailReceipt: ricevute@anpocert.it
LDIFLocationURL: https://www.anpocert.it/LDIF/anpocert.ldif.p7m
managedDomains: mail.anpocert.it.example
managedDomains: cert.company.it.example
managedDomains: costmec.it.example
description: Certified mail services for companies
dn: providerName=Postal Services S.p.A,o=postacert
objectclass: top
objectclass: provider
providerName: Postal Services S.p.A
providerCertificateHash:
e00fdd9d88be0e2cc766b893315caf93d5701a6a
providerCertificate;binary::
MIIDHjCCAoegAwIBAgIBADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBuMQswCQYDVQQGEw
JJVDEfMB0GA1UEChMWU2Vydml6aSBQb3N0YWxpIFMuci5sLjEPMA0GA1UE
CxMGRC5DLkMuMS0wKwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFh5wb3N0YS1jZXJ0aWZpY2F0YU
BzZXJwb3N0YWwuaXQwHhcNMDIxMjA5MTczMjE2WhcNMDMxMjA5MTczMjE2
WjBuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJVDEfMB0GA1UEChMWU2Vydml6aSBQb3N0YWxpIF
Muci5sLjEPMA0GA1UECxMGRC5DLkMuMS0wKwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFh5wb3N0
YS1jZXJ0aWZpY2F0YUBzZXJwb3N0YWwuaXQwgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQ
ADgY0AMIGJAoGBAKoc7n6zA+sO8NATMcfJ+U2aoDEsrj/cObG3QAN6Sr+l
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
ygWxYXLBZNfSDWqL1K4edLr4gCZIDFsq0PIEaYZhYRGjhbcuJ9H/ZdtWdX
xcwEWN4mwFzlsASogsh5JeqS8db3A1JWkvhO9EUfaCYk8YMAkXYdCtLD9s
9tCYZeTE2ut9AgMBAAGjgcswgcgwHQYDVR0OBBYEFHPw7VJIoIM3VYhuHa
eAwpPF5leMMIGYBgNVHSMEgZAwgY2AFHPw7VJIoIM3VYhuHaeAwpPF5leM
oXKkcDBuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJVDEfMB0GA1UEChMWU2Vydml6aSBQb3N0YW
xpIFMuci5sLjEPMA0GA1UECxMGRC5DLkMuMS0wKwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFh5w
b3N0YS1jZXJ0aWZpY2F0YUBzZXJwb3N0YWwuaXSCAQAwDAYDVR0TBAUwAw
EB/zANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQApqeXvmOyEjwhMrXezPAXELMZwv4qq
r5ri4XuxTq6sS9jRsEbZrS+NmbcJ7S7eFwNQMNxYFVJqdWoLh8qExsTLXn
sKycSnHbCfuphrKvXjQvR2da75U4zGSkroiyvJ2s9TtiCcT3lQtIjmvrFb
aSBiyzj+za7foFUCQmxCLtDaA==
mailReceipt: takecharge@postalser.it
LDIFLocationURL: https://services.postalser.it/ldif.txt.p7m
managedDomains: postal-services.it
managedDomains: receivedmail.it
description: Certified mail services for the public
The following LDIF file represents an example of a PEC providers'
directory, containing a base root and 2 fictitious providers, the
first of which handles a secondary environment as well. The
certificates inserted are 2 self-signed certificates used for
example purposes only:
dn: o=postacert
objectclass: top
objectclass: organization
objectClass: LDIFLocationURLObject
o: postacert
LDIFLocationURL: https://igpec.rupa.it/igpec.ldif.p7m
description: Base root for the PEC providers directory
dn: providerName=Anonymous Certified Mail S.p.A.,o=postacert
objectclass: top
objectclass: provider
providerName: Anonymous Certified Mail S.p.A.
providerCertificateHash:
7E7AEF1059AE0F454F2643A95F69EC3556009239
providerCertificate;binary::
MIIDBjCCAm+gAwIBAgIBADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBmMQswCQYDVQQGEw
JJVDEpMCcGA1UEChMgQW5vbmltYSBQb3N0YSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0YSBTLnAu
QS4xLDAqBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWHXBvc3RhLWNlcnRpZmljYXRhQGFucG9jZX
J0Lml0MB4XDTAyMTIwOTE3MjQxNVoXDTAzMTIwOTE3MjQxNVowZjELMAkG
A1UEBhMCSVQxKTAnBgNVBAoTIEFub25pbWEgUG9zdGEgQ2VydGlmaWNhdG
EgUy5wLkEuMSwwKgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFh1wb3N0YS1jZXJ0aWZpY2F0YUBh
bnBvY2VydC5pdDCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEAr8J+qK
KdxV9LzDMPqwnEy0P8H/KwbI0Szs8p6UZajZdpeUK0Ncbrv1QyXZNNtSMC
2uL09HDyx8agjgZWdhypnehguiSK3busha15RSpMGhiqxmz2b0HhOG73Gf
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
alZelqrwqmElna4MNUaLhbOvTd/sqPUS378w5IaIhWxzy34XcCAwEAAaOB
wzCBwDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUN8lC0znQWEs0xspZ/aBzsaGvRZMwgZAGA1UdIw
SBiDCBhYAUN8lC0znQWEs0xspZ/aBzsaGvRZOhaqRoMGYxCzAJBgNVBAYT
AklUMSkwJwYDVQQKEyBBbm9uaW1hIFBvc3RhIENlcnRpZmljYXRhIFMucC
5BLjEsMCoGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYdcG9zdGEtY2VydGlmaWNhdGFAYW5wb2Nl
cnQuaXSCAQAwDAYDVR0TBAUwAwEB/zANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQA58B
Z+q1qSKpuffzTBpMtbeFkDIxMqMa+ycnxdMNvcWgCm1A9ZiFJsvqYhDDqA
XxfHjkrzXuSZkYq6WiQCsLp0aYVy40QCIwbOunhrvsxh3vsG5CgN76JzZ9
5Z/1OCFNhLfqf1VH2NSS8TaYCCi/VO7W1Q1KkcA2VlxlQP7McSUw==
mailReceipt: notifications@anpocert.it
LDIFLocationURL: http://www.anpocert.it/LDIF/anpocert.ldif.p7m
managedDomains: mail.anpocert.it.example
managedDomains: cert.company.it.example
managedDomains: costmec.it.example
description: Certified mail services for companies
dn: providerUnit=Secondary Environment, providerName=Anonymous
Certified Mail S.p.A.,o=postacert
objectclass: top
objectclass: provider
providerName: Certified Mail S.p.A.
providerUnit: Secondary Environment
providerCertificateHash:
7E7AEF1059AE0F454F2643A95F69EC3556009239
providerCertificate;binary::
MIIDBjCCAm+gAwIBAgIBADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBmMQswCQYDVQQGEw
JJVDEpMCcGA1UEChMgQW5vbmltYSBQb3N0YSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0YSBTLnAu
QS4xLDAqBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWHXBvc3RhLWNlcnRpZmljYXRhQGFucG9jZX
J0Lml0MB4XDTAyMTIwOTE3MjQxNVoXDTAzMTIwOTE3MjQxNVowZjELMAkG
A1UEBhMCSVQxKTAnBgNVBAoTIEFub25pbWEgUG9zdGEgQ2VydGlmaWNhdG
EgUy5wLkEuMSwwKgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFh1wb3N0YS1jZXJ0aWZpY2F0YUBh
bnBvY2VydC5pdDCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEAr8J+qK
KdxV9LzDMPqwnEy0P8H/KwbI0Szs8p6UZajZdpeUK0Ncbrv1QyXZNNtSMC
2uL09HDyx8agjgZWdhypnehguiSK3busha15RSpMGhiqxmz2b0HhOG73Gf
alZelqrwqmElna4MNUaLhbOvTd/sqPUS378w5IaIhWxzy34XcCAwEAAaOB
wzCBwDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUN8lC0znQWEs0xspZ/aBzsaGvRZMwgZAGA1UdIw
SBiDCBhYAUN8lC0znQWEs0xspZ/aBzsaGvRZOhaqRoMGYxCzAJBgNVBAYT
AklUMSkwJwYDVQQKEyBBbm9uaW1hIFBvc3RhIENlcnRpZmljYXRhIFMucC
5BLjEsMCoGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYdcG9zdGEtY2VydGlmaWNhdGFAYW5wb2Nl
cnQuaXSCAQAwDAYDVR0TBAUwAwEB/zANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQA58B
Z+q1qSKpuffzTBpMtbeFkDIxMqMa+ycnxdMNvcWgCm1A9ZiFJsvqYhDDqA
XxfHjkrzXuSZkYq6WiQCsLp0aYVy40QCIwbOunhrvsxh3vsG5CgN76JzZ9
5Z/1OCFNhLfqf1VH2NSS8TaYCCi/VO7W1Q1KkcA2VlxlQP7McSUw==
mailReceipt: notifications@secondary.anpocert.it
managedDomains: management.anpocert.it.example
managedDomains: personnel.anpocert.it.example
description: Corporate internal services
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
dn: providerName=Postal Services S.r.l.,o=postacert
objectclass: top
objectclass: provider
providerName: Postal Services S.r.l.
providerCertificateHash:
e00fdd9d88be0e2cc766b893315caf93d5701a6a
providerCertificate;binary::
MIIDHjCCAoegAwIBAgIBADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBuMQswCQYDVQQGEw
JJVDEfMB0GA1UEChMWU2Vydml6aSBQb3N0YWxpIFMuci5sLjEPMA0GA1UE
CxMGRC5DLkMuMS0wKwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFh5wb3N0YS1jZXJ0aWZpY2F0YU
BzZXJwb3N0YWwuaXQwHhcNMDIxMjA5MTczMjE2WhcNMDMxMjA5MTczMjE2
WjBuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJVDEfMB0GA1UEChMWU2Vydml6aSBQb3N0YWxpIF
Muci5sLjEPMA0GA1UECxMGRC5DLkMuMS0wKwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFh5wb3N0
YS1jZXJ0aWZpY2F0YUBzZXJwb3N0YWwuaXQwgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQ
ADgY0AMIGJAoGBAKoc7n6zA+sO8NATMcfJ+U2aoDEsrj/cObG3QAN6Sr+l
ygWxYXLBZNfSDWqL1K4edLr4gCZIDFsq0PIEaYZhYRGjhbcuJ9H/ZdtWdX
xcwEWN4mwFzlsASogsh5JeqS8db3A1JWkvhO9EUfaCYk8YMAkXYdCtLD9s
9tCYZeTE2ut9AgMBAAGjgcswgcgwHQYDVR0OBBYEFHPw7VJIoIM3VYhuHa
eAwpPF5leMMIGYBgNVHSMEgZAwgY2AFHPw7VJIoIM3VYhuHaeAwpPF5leM
oXKkcDBuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJVDEfMB0GA1UEChMWU2Vydml6aSBQb3N0YW
xpIFMuci5sLjEPMA0GA1UECxMGRC5DLkMuMS0wKwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFh5w
b3N0YS1jZXJ0aWZpY2F0YUBzZXJwb3N0YWwuaXSCAQAwDAYDVR0TBAUwAw
EB/zANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQApqeXvmOyEjwhMrXezPAXELMZwv4qq
r5ri4XuxTq6sS9jRsEbZrS+NmbcJ7S7eFwNQMNxYFVJqdWoLh8qExsTLXn
sKycPSnHbCfuphrKvXjQvR2da75U4zGSkroiyvJ2s9TtiCcT3lQtIjmvrF
baSBiyzj+za7foFUCQmxCLtDaA==
mailReceipt: takecharge@postalser.it
LDIFLocationURL: http://services.postalser.it/ldif.txt.p7m
managedDomains: postal-services.it
managedDomains: receivedmail.it
description: Certified mail services for the public
5. Security-related aspects
5.1. Digital signature
The private key and signature operations MUST be handled using a
dedicated hardware security module which is able to guarantee their
security in compliance with the criteria adopted in the European or
international setting.
5.2. Authentication
User access to PEC services through the access point MUST be allowed
upon authentication on the system by the user himself.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
For example, authentication modalities might use user-ID and
password, or, if available and considered necessary for the type
of service provided, the electronic ID card or the national services
card. Choice of authentication modality is left to the better
judgment of the service provider. Authentication is necessary to
guarantee, as much as possible, that the message is sent by a PEC
user, whose identification data is congruent with the specified
sender, so as to avoid falsification of the latter.
5.3. Secure interaction
In order to guarantee that the original message doesn't change
during the interaction, envelopment of and signature application
on outgoing messages is done at the access point, and the subsequent
verification of incoming messages is done at the incoming point.
The original message is inserted as attachment within a transport
envelope. The transport envelope signed by the sending provider
permits to verify that the original message hasn't been modified
during its transition from sender domain to receiver domain.
All communications within the PEC network MUST use secure channels,
and integrity and confidentiality of the connections between the PEC
provider and the user MUST be guaranteed through the use of secure
protocols, such as those based on [TLS] and those that create a
secure transport channel on which non-secure protocols are conveyed
(e.g. IPSec).
The interaction between providers MUST take place using SMTP on
[TLS], as per [SMTP-TLS]. The incoming point MUST provide and
announce its support for the STARTTLS extension, as well as accept
both unencrypted connections (for ordinary mail) and protected ones.
To guarantee complete traceability in the flow of PEC messages,
these MUST NOT transit on systems external to the PEC circuit. When
exchanging messages between different providers, all transactions
MUST take place between machines that belong to the PEC circuit, or
those directly managed by the provider. Secondary PEC messages
reception systems, if present, MUST be under direct control of the
provider. An "MX" type record MUST be associated to each PEC domain,
defined within the system for name resolution.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
5.4. Virus
Another important security aspect, that concerns the entire PEC
system, is related to the technical and functional architecture
which MUST block the presence of viruses from endangering the
security of all handled messages; it is therefore REQUIRED to have
installations and continuous updates of anti-virus systems that
hinder infections as much as possible, without intervening on the
content of the certified mail, in compliance with what has been
discussed thus far.
5.5. S/MIME certificate
In this document the S/MIME certificate profile is defined for use
in the certification of PEC messages done by the providers. The
proposed profile of the S/MIME certificate is based on the IETF
standards [SMIMECERT] and [X509], which in turn are based on the
standard ISO/IEC 9594-8:2001.
5.5.1. Provider-related information (subject)
The information related to the PEC provider holder of the
certificate MUST be inserted in the "Subject:" field (Subject DN).
More precisely, the Subject DN MUST contain the PEC provider's name
as it is in the "providerName" attribute published in the PEC
providers directory (section 4.5). The providerName MUST be present
in the CommonName or OrganizationName attributes of the Subject
field in the certificate.
Certificates MUST contain an Internet mail address, which MUST
have a value in the subjectAltName extension, and SHOULD NOT be
present in the Subject Distinguished Name.
Valid subjectDN are:
C=IT, O=AcmePEC S.p.A, CN=Posta Certificata
C=IT, O=ServiziPEC S.p.A, CN=Posta Certificata
Valorization of other attributes in the Subject DN, if present,
MUST be done in compliance with [X509].
5.5.2. Certificate extensions
Extensions that MUST be present in the S/MIME certificate are:
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
o Key Usage
o Authority Key Identifier
o Subject Key Identifier
o Subject Alternative Name
The Basic Constraints extension (Object ID:2.5.29.19) MUST NOT be
present.
The valorization of the above listed extensions for the described
profile follows.
The Key Usage extension (Object ID: 2.5.29.15) MUST have the
digitalSignature bit (bit 0) activated and MUST be marked as
critical. The extension MAY contain other active bits corresponding
to different Key Usage, as long as that doesn't contrast with the
indications in [X509].
The Authority Key Identifier (Object ID:2.5.29.35) MUST contain
at least the keyIdentifier field, and MUST NOT be marked as
critical.
The Subject Key Identifier extension (Object ID: 2.5.29.14) MUST
contain at least the keyIdentifier field, and MUST NOT be marked as
critical.
The Subject Alternative Name (Object ID: 2.5.29.17) MUST contain
at least the rfc822Name field, and MUST NOT be marked as critical.
Adding other extensions that have not been described in this
document is to be considered OPTIONAL, as long as it remains
compliant with [X509]; such added extension MUST NOT be marked as
critical.
5.5.3. Example
Following is an example of an S/MIME certificate compliant with
the minimal requisites described in this profile. Values used are
of fictitious providers generated for example purposes only.
5.5.3.1. General-use certificate in annotated version
An asterisk near the label of an extension means that such an
extension has been marked as critical.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
VERSION: 3
SERIAL: 11226 (0x2bda)
INNER SIGNATURE:
ALG. ID: id-sha1-with-rsa-encryption
PARAMETER: 0
ISSUER:
Country Name: IT
Organization Name: Certifier 1
Organizational Unit Name: Certification Service Provider
Common Name: Certifier S.p.A.
VALIDITY:
Not Before: Oct 5, 04 09:04:23 GMT
Not After: Oct 5, 05 09:04:23 GMT
SUBJECT:
Country Name: IT
Organization Name: AcmePEC S.p.A.
Common Name: Certified Mail
PUBLIC KEY: (key size is 1024 bits)
ALGORITHM:
ALG. ID: id-rsa-encryption
PARAMETER: 0
|MODULUS: 0x00afbeb4 5563198a aa9bac3f 1b29b5be
| 7f691945 89d01569 ca0d555b 5c33d7e9
| ...
| d15ff128 6792def5 b3f884e6 54b326db
| cf
|EXPONENT: 0x010001
|EXTENSIONS:
| Subject Alt Name:
| RFC Name: posta-certificata@acmepec.it
| Key Usage*: Digital Signature
| Authority Key Identifier: 0x12345678 aaaaaaaa bbbbbbbb
cccccccc
dddddddd
| Subject Key Identifier: 0x3afae080 6453527a 3e5709d8 49a941a8
a3a70ae1
|SIGNATURE:
ALG. ID: id-sha1-with-rsa-encryption
PARAMETER: 0
VALUE: 0x874b4d25 70a46180 c9770a85 fe7923ce
b22d2955 2f3af207 142b2aba 643aaa61
...
d8fd10b4 c9e00ebc c089f7a3 549a1907
ff885220 ce796328 b0f8ecac 86ffb1cc
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
5.5.3.2. General-use certificate in dump asn.1
0 30 794: SEQUENCE {
4 30 514: SEQUENCE {
8 A0 3: [0] {
10 02 1: INTEGER 2
: }
13 02 2: INTEGER 11226
17 30 13: SEQUENCE {
19 06 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER
: sha1withRSAEncryption (1 2 840 113549 1 1 5)
30 05 0: NULL
: }
32 30 101: SEQUENCE {
34 31 11: SET {
36 30 9: SEQUENCE {
38 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER countryName (2 5 4 6)
43 13 2: PrintableString 'IT'
: }
: }
47 31 28: SET {
49 30 26: SEQUENCE {
51 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER organizationName (2 5 4
10)
56 13 19: PrintableString 'Certificatore 1'
: }
: }
77 31 22: SET {
79 30 20: SEQUENCE {
81 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER organizationalUnitName
(2 5 4 11)
86 13 13: PrintableString 'Certification Service
Provider'
: }
: }
101 31 32: SET {
103 30 30: SEQUENCE {
105 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER commonName (2 5 4 3)
110 13 23: PrintableString 'Certificatore S.p.A.'
: }
: }
: }
135 30 30: SEQUENCE {
137 17 13: UTCTime '041005090423Z'
152 17 13: UTCTime '051005090423Z'
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
: }
167 30 66: SEQUENCE {
169 31 11: SET {
171 30 9: SEQUENCE {
173 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER countryName (2 5 4 6)
178 13 2: PrintableString 'IT'
: }
: }
182 31 23: SET {
184 30 21: SEQUENCE {
186 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER organizationName (2 5 4
10)
191 13 14: PrintableString 'AcmePEC S.p.A.'
: }
: }
207 31 26: SET {
209 30 24: SEQUENCE {
211 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER commonName (2 5 4 3)
216 13 17: PrintableString 'Posta Certificata'
: }
: }
: }
235 30 159: SEQUENCE {
238 30 13: SEQUENCE {
240 06 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER rsaEncryption (1 2 840
113549
1
1 1)
251 05 0: NULL
: }
253 03 141: BIT STRING 0 unused bits
: 30 81 89 02 81 81 00 AF BE B4 55 63 19 8A AA 9B
: AC 3F 1B 29 B5 BE 7F 69 19 45 89 D0 15 69 CA 0D
: 55 5B 5C 33 D7 E9 C8 6E FC 14 46 C3 C3 09 47 DD
: CD 10 74 1D 76 4E 71 14 E7 69 42 BE 1C 47 61 85
: 4D 74 76 DD 0B B5 78 4F 1E 84 DD B4 86 7F 96 DF
: 5E 7B AF 0E CE EA 12 57 0B DF 9B 63 67 4D F9 37
: B7 48 35 27 C2 89 F3 C3 54 66 F7 DA 6C BE 4F 5D
: 85 55 07 A4 97 8C D1 5F F1 28 67 92 DE F5 B3 F8
: [ Another 12 bytes skipped ]
: }
397 A3 123: [3] {
399 30 121: SEQUENCE {
401 30 39: SEQUENCE {
403 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER subjectAltName (2 5 29
17)
408 04 32: OCTET STRING
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
: 30 1E 81 1C 70 6F 73 74 61 2D 63 65 72 74 69
66
: 69 63 61 74 61 40 61 63 6D 65 70 65 63 2E 69
74
: }
442 30 14: SEQUENCE {
444 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER keyUsage (2 5 29 15)
449 01 1: BOOLEAN TRUE
452 04 4: OCTET STRING
: 03 02 07 80
: }
458 30 31: SEQUENCE {
460 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER authorityKeyIdentifier
(2 5
29
35)
465 04 24: OCTET STRING
: 30 16 11 11 11 11 AA AA AA AA AA BB BB BB BB
CC
CC
: CC CC DD DD DD DD
: }
491 30 29: SEQUENCE {
493 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER subjectKeyIdentifier (2
5 29
14)
498 04 22: OCTET STRING
: 04 14 3A FA E0 80 64 53 52 7A 3E 57 09 D8 49
A9
: 41 A8 A3 A7 0A E1
: }
: }
: }
: }
522 30 13: SEQUENCE {
524 06 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER
: sha1withRSAEncryption (1 2 840 113549 1 1 5)
535 05 0: NULL
: }
537 03 257: BIT STRING 0 unused bits
: 87 4B 4D 25 70 A4 61 80 C9 77 0A 85 FE 79 23 CE
: B2 2D 29 55 2F 3A F2 07 14 2B 2A BA 64 3A AA 61
: 1F F0 E7 3F C4 E6 13 E2 09 3D F0 E1 83 A0 C0 F2
: C6 71 7F 3A 1C 80 7F 15 B3 D6 1E 22 79 B8 AC 91
: 51 83 F2 3A 84 86 B6 07 2B 22 E8 01 52 2D A4 50
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
: 9F C6 42 D4 7C 38 B1 DD 88 CD FC E8 C3 12 C3 62
: 64 0F 16 BF 70 15 BC 01 16 78 30 2A DA FA F3 70
: E2 D3 0F 00 B0 FD 92 11 6C 55 45 48 F5 64 ED 98
: [ Another 128 bytes skipped ]
: }
5.6. PEC providers directory
The contents of the PEC providers directory MUST be queried via
HTTP on SSL, as described in [TLS], exclusively by licensed
providers that have the necessary user certificates; this access
modality guarantees authenticity, integrity and confidentiality
of data.
6. PEC system client technical and functional prerequisites
This section lists the prerequisites that must be respected by a
client in order to guarantee the minimal operative functionalities
to the user of a general PEC system:
o handling of access and delivery points through secure channels;
o handling of user authentication in message dispatch and reception
phases;
o support for MIME format according to [MIME1] and [MIME5];
o handling of media type "message.rfc822";
o support for "ISO-8859-1 (Latin-1)" character set;
o support for S/MIME v3 standard, as in [SMIMEV3], for verification
of signatures applied to envelopes and notifications.
7. Security Considerations
All security considerations from [CMS] and [SMIMEV3] apply to
applications that use procedures described in this document.
The centralized LDAP server is a critical point for the security of
the whole PEC system. An attack could compromise the whole PEC
system. PEC providers that periodically download the LDIF file
SHOULD use the best security technology to protect it from local
attacks. A PEC provider could be compromised if an attacker changed
a certificate or modified the list of domains associated
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
to it in the LDIF file that was copied to the PEC provider system.
When verifying the validity of the signature of a message, the
recipient system SHOULD verify that the certificate included in the
[CMS] message is present in the LDIF file (section 4.5), and that
the domain extracted by the [EMAIL] "From:" header is listed in the
managedDomains attribute associated to said certificate.
8. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any consideration from the IANA.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[CMS] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC
3852, Vigil Security, July 2004
[EMAIL] P. Resnick, Editor, "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
QUALCOM Incorporated, April 2001
[LDAP] Legg, S., Editor, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP): Syntaxes and Matching Rules", RFC 4517, eB2Bcom,
June 2006
[LDIF] Good, G., "The LDAP Data Interchange Format (LDIF) -
Technical Specification", RFC 2849, iPlanet e-commerce
Solutions, June 2000
[MIME1] Freed, N., and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996
[MIME5] Freed, N., and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and
Examples", RFC 2049, November 1996
[REQ] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Harvard University,
March 1997
[SHA1] Eastlake, D., and P. Jones, "US Secure Hash Algorithm 1
(SHA1)", RFC 3174, September 2001
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
[MIME-SECURE] Galvin, J., S. Murphy, S. Crocker, and N. Freed,
"Security Multiparts for MIME: Multipart/Signed and
Multipart/Encrypted", RFC 1847, October 1995
[SMIMEV3] Ramsdell, B. Editor, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specifications",
RFC 3851, Sendmail, Inc., July 2004
[SMIMECERT] Ramsdell, B., Editor, "Secure/Multipurpose internet
Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Certificate
Handling", RFC 3850, Sendmail, Inc., July 2004
[SMTP] Klensin, J. Editor, "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC
5321, AT&T Laboratories, April 2001
[SMTP-DSN] Moore, K., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)
Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications
(DSNs)", RFC 3461, University of Tennessee, January
2003
[SMTP-TLS] Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP
over Transport Layer Security", RFC 3207, Internet
Mail Consortium, February 2002
[TLS] Dierks, T., and E.Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008
[X509] Cooper, D., S. Santesson, S. Farrell, S. Boeyen, R.
Housley, and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation
List (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008
10. Acknowledgments
The Italian document, on which the present document is based, is
a product of the collaboration of many, with the supervision of
the National Center for Informatics in the Public Administration
of Italy (CNIPA).
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
APPENDIX A: Italian fields and values in English
X-Riferimento-Message-ID X-Reference-Message-ID
X-Ricevuta X-Notification
non-accettazione non-acceptance
accettazione acceptance
preavviso-errore-consegna advance-notice-delivery-error
presa-in-carico take-charge
rilevazione-virus virus-detection
errore-consegna delivery-error
avvenuta-consegna message-delivered
X-VerificaSicurezza X-SecurityVerification
X-Trasporto X-Transport
posta-certificata certified-mail
errore error
X-VerificaSicurezza X-SecurityVerification
errore error
X-TipoRicevuta X-NotificationType
completa complete
breve brief
sintetica concise
certificatore certificator
Subject values:
Accettazione ACCEPTANCE
Posta certificata CERTIFIED MAIL
Presa in carico TAKE IN CHARGE
Consegna DELIVERY
Anomalia messaggio MESSAGE ANOMALY
Problema di sicurezza SECURITY PROBLEM
Avviso di non accettazione NON-ACCEPTANCE
NOTIFICATION
Avviso di non accettazione per virus VIRUS DETECTION INDUCED
NON-ACCEPTANCE NOTIFICATION
Avviso di mancata consegna NON-DELIVERY NOTIFICATION
Avviso di mancata consegna per virus NON-DELIVERY NOTIFICATION
DUE TO VIRUS
Avviso di mancata consegna per sup. NON-DELIVERY NOTIFICATION
tempo massimo DUE TO TIMEOUT
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
Authors' Addresses
Francesco Gennai
ISTI-CNR
Via Moruzzi, 1
56126 Pisa
Italy
Email: francesco.gennai@isti.cnr.it
Alba Shahin
ISTI-CNR
Via Moruzzi, 1
56126 Pisa
Italy
Email: alba.shahin@isti.cnr.it
Claudio Petrucci
CNIPA
Via Isonzo 21/B
00198 Roma
Italy
Email: c.petrucci@cnipa.it
Alessandro Vinciarelli
CNIPA
Via Isonzo 21/B
00198 Roma
Italy
Email: alessandro.vinciarelli@cnipa.it
Copyright Statement
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your
rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail June 2009
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Gennai et al. Expires December 2009 [Page 61]
