Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistbis
draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistbis
EAI J. Levine
Internet-Draft Taughannock Networks
Intended status: Informational R. Gellens
Expires: December 31, 2012 Qualcomm Incorporated
July 2012
Mailing Lists and non-ASCII Addresses
draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistbis-05
Abstract
This document describes considerations for mailing lists with the
introduction of non-ASCII UTF-8 email addresses. It outlines some
possible scenarios for handling lists with mixtures of non-ASCII and
traditional addresses, but does not specify protocol changes or offer
implementation or deployment advice.
*NOTE TO REVIEWERS: Missing or odd-looking references between
sections are due to bugs in xml2rfc. The XML is OK, and the HTML
output looks reasonable.*
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 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
Levine & Gellens Expires December 31, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Mailing Lists and non-ASCII Addresses July 2012
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Mailing list header additions and modifications . . . . . 3
1.2. Non-ASCII email addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Scenarios Involving Mailing Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Fully SMTPUTF8 lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Mixed SMTPUTF8 and ASCII lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. SMTP issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. List headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. SMTPUTF8 list headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Downgrading list headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Subscribers' addresses in downgraded headers . . . . . . . 8
4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A.1. Change from -04 to -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A.2. Change from -03 to -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A.3. Change from -02 to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A.4. Changes up to -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A.5. Changes up to -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
This document describes considerations for mailing lists with the
introduction of non-ASCII UTF-8 email addresses. The usage of such
addresses is described in [RFC6530].
Mailing lists are an important part of email usage and collaborative
communications. The introduction of internationalized email
addresses affects mailing lists in three main areas: (1) transport
(receiving and sending messages); (2) message headers of received and
retransmitted messages; and (3) mailing list operational policies.
Levine & Gellens Expires December 31, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Mailing Lists and non-ASCII Addresses July 2012
A mailing list is a mechanism that distributes a message to multiple
recipients when the originator sends it to a single address. An
agent, usually software rather than a person, at that single address
receives the message and then causes the message to be redistributed
to a list of recipients. This agent usually sets the envelope return
address (henceforth called the bounce address) of the redistributed
message to a different address from that of the original message.
Using a different bounce address directs error and other
automatically generated messages to an error handling address
associated with the mailing list. This sends error and other
automatic messages to the list agent, which can often do something
useful with them, rather than to the original sender, who typically
doesn't control the list and hence can't do anything about them.
In most cases, the mailing list agent redistributes a received
message to its subscribers as a new message, that is, conceptually it
uses message submission [RFC6409] (as did the sender of the original
message). The exception, where the mailing list is not managed by a
separate agent that receives and redistributes messages in separate
transactions, but is implemented by an expansion step within an SMTP
transaction where one local address expands to multiple local or non-
local addresses, is not addressed by this document.
1.1. Mailing list header additions and modifications
Some list agents alter message header fields, while others do not. A
number of standardized list-related header fields have been defined,
and many lists add one or more of these headers. Separate from these
standardized list-specific header fields, and despite a history of
interoperability problems from doing so, some lists alter or add
header fields in an attempt to control where replies are sent. Such
lists typically add or replace the "Reply-To" field and some add or
replace the "Sender" field. Some lists alter or replace other
fields, including "From".
Among these list-specific header fields are those specified in RFCs
2369 [RFC2369] and 2919 [RFC2919]. For more information, see Section
3.
1.2. Non-ASCII email addresses
While the mail transport protocol is the same for regular email
recipients and mailing list recipients, list agents have special
considerations with non-ASCII email addresses because they retransmit
messages composed by other agents to potentially many recipients.
There are considerations for non-ASCII email addresses in the
envelope as well as in header fields of redistributed messages. In
particular, a message with non-ASCII addresses in the headers or
envelope cannot be sent to non-SMTPUTF8 recipients.
Levine & Gellens Expires December 31, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Mailing Lists and non-ASCII Addresses July 2012
With mailing lists, there are two different types of considerations:
first, the purely technical ones involving message handling, error
cases, and the like, and second, those that arise from the fact that
humans use mailing lists to communicate. As an example of the first,
list agents might choose to reject all messages from non-ASCII
addresses if they are unprepared to handle SMTPUTF8 mail. As an
example of the second, a user who sends a message to a list often is
unaware of the list membership. In particular, the user often
doesn't know if the members are SMTPUTF8 mail users or not, and often
neither the original sender nor the recipients personally know each
other. As a consequence of this, remedies that may be readily
available for one-to-one communication might not be appropriate when
dealing with mailing lists. For example, if a user sends a message
which is undeliverable, normally the telephone, instant messaging, or
other forms of communication are available to obtain a working
address. With mailing lists, the users may not have any recourse.
Of course, with mailing lists, the original sender usually does not
know which list members successfully received a message, or if it was
undeliverable to some.
Conceptually, a mailing list's internationalization can be divided
into three capabilities: First, does the list have a non-ASCII
submission address? Second, does the list agent accept subscriptions
for addresses containing non-ASCII characters? And third, does the
list agent accept messages that require SMTPUTF8 capabilities?
If a list has subscribers with ASCII addresses, those subscribers
might or might not be able to accept SMTPUTF8 messages.
2. Scenarios Involving Mailing Lists
Generally (and exclusively within the scope of this document), an
original message is sent to a mailing list as a completely separate
and independent transaction from the list agent sending the
retransmitted message to one or more list recipients. In both cases,
the message might be addressed only to the list address, or might
have recipients in addition to the list. Furthermore, the list agent
might choose to send the retransmitted message to each list recipient
in a separate message submission transaction, or might choose to
include multiple recipients per transaction. Often, list agents are
constructed to work in cooperation with, rather than include the
functionality of, a message submission server, and hence the list
transmits to a single submission server one copy of the retransmitted
message. The submission server then decides which recipients to
include in which transaction.
Levine & Gellens Expires December 31, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Mailing Lists and non-ASCII Addresses July 2012
2.1. Fully SMTPUTF8 lists
Some lists may wish to be fully SMTPUTF8. That is, all subscribers
are expected to be able to receive SMTPUTF8 mail. For list hygiene
reasons, such a list would probably want to prevent subscriptions
from addresses that are unable to receive SMTPUTF8 mail. If a
putative subscriber has a non-ASCII address, it must be able to
receive SMTPUTF8 mail, but there is no way to tell whether a
subscriber with an ASCII address can receive SMTPUTF8 mail short of
sending an SMTPUTF8 probe or confirmation message and somehow finding
out whether it was delivered, e.g., if the user clicked a link in the
confirmation message.
2.2. Mixed SMTPUTF8 and ASCII lists
Other lists may wish to handle a mixture of SMTPUTF8 and ASCII
subscribers, either as a transitional measure as subscribers upgrade
to SMTPUTF8-capable mail software, or as an ongoing feature. While
it is not possible in general to downgrade SMTPUTF8 mail to ASCII
mail, list software might divide the recipients into two sets,
SMTPUTF8 and ASCII recipients, and create a downgraded version of
SMTPUTF8 list messages to send to ASCII recipients. See Section 3.2
and Section 3.3.
To determine which set an address belongs in, list software might
make the conservative assumption that ASCII addresses get ASCII
messages, it might try to probe the address with an SMTPUTF8 test
message, or it might let the subscriber set the message format
manually, similar to the way that some lists now let subscribers
choose between plain text and HTML mail, or individual messages and a
daily digest.
To determine whether a message needs to be downgraded for ASCII
recipients, list software might assume that any message received via
an SMTPUTF8 SMTP session is an SMTPUTF8 message, or might examine the
headers and body of the message to see whether it needs SMTPUTF8
treatment. Depending on the interface between the list software and
the MTA and MDA that handle incoming messages, it may not be able to
tell the type of session for incoming messages.
2.3. SMTP issues
Mailing list software usually changes the envelope addresses on each
message. The bounce address is set to an address that will return
bounces to the list agent, and the recipient addresses are set to the
subscribers of the list. For some lists, all messages to a list get
the same bounce address. For others, list software may create a
Levine & Gellens Expires December 31, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Mailing Lists and non-ASCII Addresses July 2012
bounce address per recipient, or a unique bounce address per message
per recipient, bounce management techniques known as Variable
Envelope Return Path or VERP [VERP].
The bounce address for a list typically includes the name of the
list, so a list with a non-ASCII name will have a non-ASCII bounce
address. Given the unknown paths that bounce messages might take,
list software might instead use an ASCII bounce address to make it
more likely that bounces can be delivered back to the list agent.
Similarly, a VERP address for each subscriber typically embeds a
version of the subscriber's address so the VERP bounce address for a
non-ASCII subscriber address will be a non-ASCII address. For the
same reason, the list software might use ASCII bounce addresses that
encode the recipient's identity in some other way.
3. List headers
List agents typically adds list-specific headers to each message
before resending the message to list recipients.
3.1. SMTPUTF8 list headers
The list headers in RFCs 2369 [RFC2369] and 2919 [RFC2919] were all
specified before SMTPUTF8 mail existed and their definitions do not
address where non-ASCII characters might appear. These include, for
example:
List-Id: List Header Mailing List
<list-header.example.com>
List-Help:
<mailto:list@example.com?subject=help>
List-Unsubscribe:
<mailto:list@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe:
<mailto:list@example.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Post:
<mailto:list@example.com>
List-Owner:
<mailto:listmom@example.com> (Contact Person for Help)
List-Archive: <mailto:archive@example.com?subject=index%20list>
As described in [RFC2369], "The contents of the list header fields
mostly consist of angle-bracket ('<', '>') enclosed URLs, with
internal whitespace being ignored." [RFC2919] specifies that "The
list identifier will, in most cases, appear like a host name in a
domain of the list owner." Since these headers were defined in the
context of ASCII mail, these headers permit only ASCII text including
in the URLs.
The most commonly-used URI schemes in List-* headers tend to be http
and mailto [RFC6068], although they sometimes include https and ftp,
and in principle can contain any valid URI.
Levine & Gellens Expires December 31, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Mailing Lists and non-ASCII Addresses July 2012
Even if a scheme permits an internationalized form, it should use a
pure ASCII form of the URI described in [RFC3986]. Future work may
extend these header fields or define replacements to directly support
unencoded non-ASCII outside the ASCII repertoire in these and other
header fields, but in the absence of such extension or replacement,
non-ASCII characters can only be included by encoding them as ASCII.
The encoding technique specified in [RFC3986] is to use a pair of hex
digits preceded by a percent sign, but percent signs have been used
informally in mail addresses to do source routing. Although few mail
systems still permit source routing, a lot of mail software still
forbids or escapes characters formerly used for source routing, which
can lead to unfortunate interactions with percent-encoded URIs or any
URI that includes one of those characters. If a program interpreting
a mailto: URI knew that the MUA in use were able to handle non-ASCII
data, the program could pass the URI in unencoded non-ASCII, avoiding
problems with misinterpreted percent signs, but at this point there
is no standard or even informal way for MUAs to signal SMTPUTF8
capabilities. Also, note that whether internationalized domain names
should be percent-encoded or puny-coded depends on the context in
which they occur.
The List-ID header field uniquely identifies a list. The intent is
that the value of this header remain constant, even if the machine or
system used to operate or host the list changes. This header field
is often used in various filters and tests, such as client-side
filters, Sieve filters [RFC5228], and so forth. If the definition of
a List-ID header field were to be extended to allow non-ASCII text,
filters and tests might not properly compare encoded and unencoded
versions of a non-ASCII value. In addition to these comparison
considerations, it is generally desirable that this header field
contain something meaningful that users can type in. However, ASCII
encodings of non-ASCII characters are unlikely to be meaningful to
users or easy for them to accurately type.
3.2. Downgrading list headers
If list software prepares a downgraded version of an SMTPUTF8
message, all the List-* headers must be downgraded. In particular,
if a List-* header contains a non-ASCII mailto (even encoded in
ASCII), it may be advisable to edit the header to remove the non-
ASCII address, or replace it with an equivalent ASCII address if one
is known to the list software. Otherwise, a client might run into
trouble if the decoded mailto results in a non-ASCII address. If a
header that contains a mailto URL is downgraded by percent encoding,
some mail software may misinterpret the percent signs as attempted
source routing.
When downgrading list headers, it may not be possible to produce a
downgraded version that is satisfactorily equivalent to the original
header. In particular, if a non-ASCII List-ID is downgraded to an
ASCII version, software and humans at recipient systems will
typically not be able to tell that both refer to the same list.
Levine & Gellens Expires December 31, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Mailing Lists and non-ASCII Addresses July 2012
If lists permit mail with multiple MIME parts, some MIME headers in
SMTPUTF8 messages may include non-ASCII characters in file names and
other descriptive text strings. Downgrading these strings may lose
the sense of the names, break references from other MIME parts (such
as HTML IMG references to embedded images) and otherwise damage the
mail.
3.3. Subscribers' addresses in downgraded headers
List software typically leaves the original submitter's address in
the From: line, both so that recipients can tell who wrote the
message, and so that they have a choice of responding to the list or
directly to the submitter. If a submitter has a non-ASCII address,
there is no way to downgrade the From: header and preserve the
address so that ASCII recipients can respond to it, since non-
SMTPUTF8 mail systems can't send mail to non-ASCII addresses.
Possible work arounds (none implemented that we know of) might
include allowing subscribers with non-ASCII addresses to register an
alternate ASCII address with the list software, having the list
software itself create ASCII forwarding addresses, or just putting
the list's address in the From: line and losing the ability to
respond directly to the submitter.
4. Security considerations
None beyond what mailing list agents do now.
5. IANA considerations
*NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: This section may be removed upon publication of
this document as an RFC.*
This document makes no requests to IANA.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC
3986, January 2005.
[RFC6068] Duerst, M., Masinter, L. and J. Zawinski, "The 'mailto'
URI Scheme", RFC 6068, October 2010.
[RFC6409] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission for Mail",
STD 72, RFC 6409, November 2011.
[RFC6530] Klensin, J. and Y. Ko, "Overview and Framework for
Internationalized Email", RFC 6530, February 2012.
6.2. Informative References
Levine & Gellens Expires December 31, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Mailing Lists and non-ASCII Addresses July 2012
[RFC2369] Neufeld, G. and J.D. Baer, "The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax
for Core Mail List Commands and their Transport through
Message Header Fields", RFC 2369, July 1998.
[RFC2919] Chandhok, R. and G. Wenger, "List-Id: A Structured Field
and Namespace for the Identification of Mailing Lists",
RFC 2919, March 2001.
[RFC5228] Guenther, P. and T. Showalter, "Sieve: An Email Filtering
Language", RFC 5228, January 2008.
[VERP] "Variable Envelope Return Path", .
Appendix A. Change Log
*NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: This section may be removed upon publication of
this document as an RFC.*
Appendix A.1. Change from -04 to -05
Add place holder IANA considerations
Appendix A.2. Change from -03 to -04
Update references
Appendix A.3. Change from -02 to -03
Distinguish lists from agents.
Change refs to EAI to non-ASCII addresses or SMTPUTF8 mail
capabilities.
Reference for VERP
Clarify discussions of IRIs.
CapiTALiZe MaiLto and hTTp ConsistentlY.
Appendix A.4. Changes up to -02
Various editorial changes.
Refer to RFC 6068.
Appendix A.5. Changes up to -00
Rewrite completely.
Authors' Addresses
Levine & Gellens Expires December 31, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Mailing Lists and non-ASCII Addresses July 2012
John Levine
Taughannock Networks
PO Box 727
Trumansburg, NY 14886
Phone: +1 831 480 2300
Email: standards@taugh.com
URI: http://jl.ly
Randall Gellens
Qualcomm Incorporated
5775 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, CA 92121
Email: rg+ietf@qualcomm.com
Levine & Gellens Expires December 31, 2012 [Page 10]
