MARF Working Group S. Kitterman
Internet-Draft Agari
Updates: 4408 (if approved) March 14, 2012
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: September 15, 2012
SPF Authentication Failure Reporting using the Abuse Report Format
draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-10
Abstract
This memo presents extensions to the Abuse Reporting Format (ARF),
and Sender Policy Framework (SPF) specifications to allow for
detailed reporting of message authentication failures in an on-demand
fashion.
This memo updates RFC4408 by providing an IANA registry for SPF
modifiers.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 15, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Kitterman Expires September 15, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SPF Auth Failure Reporting March 2012
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Imported Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Optional Reporting Address for SPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Requested Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Requested Reports for SPF Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. SPF Modifier Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Identity Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. Report Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix B. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.1. SPF DNS record for domain that sends no mail, but
requests reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.2. Minimal SPF DNS record change to add a reporting
address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B.3. SPF DNS record with reporting address, report
percentage, and requested report type . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Kitterman Expires September 15, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SPF Auth Failure Reporting March 2012
1. Introduction
Abuse Reporting Format [ARF] defines a message format for sending
reports of abuse in the messaging infrastructure, with an eye toward
automating both the generating and consumption of those reports.
Sender Policy Framework [SPF] is one mechanism for message sender
authentication; it is "path-based" meaning it authenticates the route
that a message took from origin to destination. The output is a
verified domain name that can then be subjected to some sort of
evaluation process (e.g., comparison to a known-good list, submission
to a reputation service, etc.).
This document extends [SPF] to add an optional reporting address and
other parameters. Extension of [ARF] to add features required for
the reporting of these incidents is covered in
[I-D.IETF-MARF-AUTHFAILURE-REPORT] and [I-D.IETF-MARF-AS].
This document additionally creates a an IANA registry of [SPF] record
modifiers to avoid modifier namespace collisions.
Kitterman Expires September 15, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SPF Auth Failure Reporting March 2012
2. Definitions
2.1. Keywords
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 [KEYWORDS].
2.2. Imported Definitions
The ABNF token "qp-section" is defined in [MIME].
"local-part" is defined in [MAIL].
"addr-spec" is defined in [MAIL].
Kitterman Expires September 15, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SPF Auth Failure Reporting March 2012
3. Optional Reporting Address for SPF
There exist cases in which an ADministrative Management Domain (ADMD)
(see [EMAIL-ARCH]) employing [SPF] for announcing sending practices
may want to know when messages are received via unauthorized routing.
Currently there is no such method defined in conjunction with
standardized approaches such as [ARF]. Similar information can be
gathered using a specially crafted [SPF] record and a special DNS
server to track [SPF] record lookups.
This document defines the following optional "modifier" (as defined
in Section 4.6.1 of [SPF]) to SPF records, using the form defined in
that specification:
ra= Reporting Address (plain-text; OPTIONAL; no default). MUST be a
local-part (see Section 3.4.1 of [MAIL]) specifying an e-mail
address to which a report SHOULD be sent when mail claiming to be
from this domain (see Section 2.4 of [SPF] for a description of
how domains are identified for SPF checks) has failed the
evaluation algorithm described in [SPF], in particular because a
message arrived via an unauthorized route. To generate a complete
address to which the report is sent, the verifier simply appends
to this value an "@" followed by the SPF-compliant domain per
paragraph 4.1 of [SPF]. ra= modifiers in a record that was reached
by following an "include" mechanism (defined in [SPF] paragraph
5.2) MUST be ignored.
ABNF:
spf-report-tag = "ra=" qp-section
rp= Requested Report Percentage (plain-text; OPTIONAL; default is
"100"). The value is an integer from 0 to 100 inclusive that
indicates what percentage of incidents of SPF failures, selected
at random, are to cause reports to be generated. The report
generator SHOULD NOT issue reports for more than the requested
percentage of incidents. An exception to this might be some out-
of-band arrangement between two parties to override it with some
mutually agreed value. Report generators MAY make use of the
"Incidents:" field in [ARF] to indicate that there are more
reportable incidents than there are reports.
ABNF:
spf-rp-tag = "rp=" 1*12DIGIT "/" 1*12DIGIT
Kitterman Expires September 15, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SPF Auth Failure Reporting March 2012
rr= Requested Reports (plain-text; OPTIONAL; default is "all"). The
value MUST be a colon-separated list of tokens representing those
conditions under which a report is desired. See Section 4.1 for a
list of valid tags.
ABNF:
spf-rr-type = ( "all" / "e" / "f" / "s" / "n" )
spf-rr-tag = "rr=" spf-rr-type 0* ( ":" spf-rr-type )
In the absence of an "ra=" tag in the SPF record, the "rp=" and "rr="
tags MUST be ignored, and the report generator MUST NOT issue a
report.
Kitterman Expires September 15, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SPF Auth Failure Reporting March 2012
4. Requested Reports
This memo also includes, as the "rr" tokens defined above, the means
by which the sender can request reports for specific circumstances of
interest. Verifiers MUST NOT generate reports for incidents that do
not match a requested report, and MUST ignore requests for reports
not included in this list.
4.1. Requested Reports for SPF Failures
The following report requests are defined for SPF results:
all All reports are requested.
e Reports are requested for messages that produced an SPF result of
"TempError" or "PermError".
f Reports are requested for messages that produced an SPF result of
"Fail".
s Reports are requested for messages that produced an SPF result of
"SoftFail".
n Reports are requested for messages that produced an SPF result of
"Neutral" or "None".
Kitterman Expires September 15, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SPF Auth Failure Reporting March 2012
5. IANA Considerations
As required by [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS], this section contains registry
information for the new [SPF] modifiers.
5.1. SPF Modifier Registration
IANA is requested to create the Sender Policy Framework Modifier
Registry, to include a list of all registered SPF modifier names and
their defining documents.
New registrations or updates are to be published in accordance with
the "Specification Required" guidelines as described in
[IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]. New registrations and updates MUST contain
the following information:
1. Name of the modifier being registered or updated
2. The document in which the specification of the modifier is
published
3. New or updated status, which MUST be one of:
current: The field is in current use
deprecated: The field might be in current use but its use is
discouraged
historic: The field is no longer in current use
An update may make a notation on an existing registration indicating
that a registered field is historic or deprecated if appropriate.
+------------+-----------------+---------+
| MODIFIER | REFERENCE | STATUS |
+------------+-----------------+---------+
| exp | RFC4408 | current |
| redirect | RFC4408 | current |
| ra | (this document) | current |
| rp | (this document) | current |
| rr | (this document) | current |
+------------+-----------------+---------+
Kitterman Expires September 15, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SPF Auth Failure Reporting March 2012
6. Security Considerations
Inherited considerations: implementors are advised to consider the
Security Considerations sections of [SPF], [ARF], [I-D.IETF-MARF-AS],
and [I-D.IETF-MARF-AUTHFAILURE-REPORT].
In addition to the advice in the Security Considerations section of
[I-D.IETF-MARF-AS], these additional considerations apply to
generation of [SPF] authentication failure reports:
6.1. Identity Selection
Preventing an [SPF] failure for SPF authentication failure reports is
essential to mitigate the risk of data loops.
If the [SMTP] return address to be used will not be the NULL
return address, i.e., "MAIL FROM:<>", then the selected return
address MUST be selected such that it will pass [SPF] MAIL FROM
checks upon initial receipt.
If the report is passed to the Mail Submission Agent (MSA) (MSA is
described in [EMAIL-ARCH] using [SMTP]), the HELO/EHLO command
parameter SHOULD also be selected so that it will pass [SPF] HELO
checks.
6.2. Report Volume
It is impossible to predict the volume of reports this facility will
generate when enabled by a report receiver. An implementer ought to
anticipate substantial volume, since the amount of abuse occurring at
receivers cannot be known ahead of time, and may vary rapidly and
unpredictably.
Kitterman Expires September 15, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SPF Auth Failure Reporting March 2012
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[ARF] Shafranovich, Y., Levine, J., and M. Kucherawy, "An
Extensible Format for Email Feedback Reports", RFC 5965,
August 2010.
[I-D.IETF-MARF-AS]
Falk, J. and M. Kucherawy, Ed., "Creation and Use of Email
Feedback Reports: An Applicability Statement for the Abuse
Reporting Format (ARF)", draft-ietf-marf-as (work in
progress), February 2012.
[I-D.IETF-MARF-AUTHFAILURE-REPORT]
Fontana, H., "Authentication Failure Reporting using the
Abuse Report Format", draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report
(work in progress), January 2012.
[IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]
Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, May 2008.
[KEYWORDS]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[MAIL] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
October 2008.
[MIME] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[SMTP] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
October 2008.
[SPF] Wong, M. and W. Schlitt, "Sender Policy Framework (SPF)
for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail, Version 1",
RFC 4408, April 2006.
7.2. Informative References
[EMAIL-ARCH]
Crocker, D., "Internet Mail Architecture", RFC 5598,
October 2008.
Kitterman Expires September 15, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SPF Auth Failure Reporting March 2012
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge the following for their review and
constructive criticism of this proposal: Murray Kucherawy, Tim
Draegen, Julian Mehnle, and John Levine.
Kitterman Expires September 15, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SPF Auth Failure Reporting March 2012
Appendix B. Examples
B.1. SPF DNS record for domain that sends no mail, but requests reports
v=spf1 ra=postmaster -all
B.2. Minimal SPF DNS record change to add a reporting address
v=spf1 mx:example.org ra=postmaster -all
B.3. SPF DNS record with reporting address, report percentage, and
requested report type
v=spf1 mx:example.org -all ra=postmaster rp=10 rr=e
Kitterman Expires September 15, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SPF Auth Failure Reporting March 2012
Author's Address
Scott Kitterman
Agari
3611 Scheel Dr
Ellicott City, MD 21042
US
Phone: +1 301 325 5475
Email: skitterman@agari.com
Kitterman Expires September 15, 2012 [Page 13]
