1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Kucherawy
Request for Comments: 7372 September 2014
Updates: <a href="./rfc7208">7208</a>
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721
<span class="h1">Email Authentication Status Codes</span>
Abstract
This document registers code points to allow status codes to be
returned to an email client to indicate that a message is being
rejected or deferred specifically because of email authentication
failures.
This document updates <a href="./rfc7208">RFC 7208</a>, since some of the code points
registered replace the ones recommended for use in that document.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 5741</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7372">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7372</a>.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
<span class="grey">Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7372">RFC 7372</a> Email Auth Status Codes September 2014</span>
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. New Enhanced Status Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. DKIM Failure Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. SPF Failure Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>. Reverse DNS Failure Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-3.4">3.4</a>. Multiple Authentication Failures Code . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-7">7</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC3463">RFC3463</a>] introduced Enhanced Mail System Status Codes, and [<a href="./rfc5248" title=""A Registry for SMTP Enhanced Mail System Status Codes"">RFC5248</a>]
created an IANA registry for these.
[<a id="ref-RFC6376">RFC6376</a>] and [<a href="./rfc7208" title=""Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1"">RFC7208</a>] introduced, respectively, DomainKeys
Identified Mail (DKIM) and Sender Policy Framework (SPF), two
protocols for conducting message authentication. Another common
email acceptance test is the reverse Domain Name System (DNS) check
on an email client's IP address, as described in <a href="./rfc7001#section-3">Section 3 of
[RFC7001]</a>.
The current set of enhanced status codes does not include any code
for indicating that a message is being rejected or deferred due to
local policy reasons related to any of these mechanisms. This is
potentially useful information to agents that need more than
rudimentary handling information about the reason a message was
rejected on receipt. This document introduces enhanced status codes
for reporting those cases to clients.
<a href="#section-3.2">Section 3.2</a> updates [<a href="./rfc7208" title=""Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1"">RFC7208</a>], as new enhanced status codes relevant
to that specification are being registered and recommended for use.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Key Words</span>
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="grey">Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7372">RFC 7372</a> Email Auth Status Codes September 2014</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. New Enhanced Status Codes</span>
The new enhanced status codes are defined in the following
subsections.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>. DKIM Failure Codes</span>
In the code point definitions below, the following definitions are
used:
passing: A signature is "passing" if the basic DKIM verification
algorithm, as defined in [<a href="./rfc6376" title=""DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures"">RFC6376</a>], succeeds.
acceptable: A signature is "acceptable" if it satisfies all locally
defined requirements (if any) in addition to passing the basic
DKIM verification algorithm (e.g., certain header fields are
included in the signed content, no partial signatures, etc.).
Code: X.7.20
Sample Text: No passing DKIM signature found
Associated basic status code: 550
Description: This status code is returned when a message
did not contain any passing DKIM
signatures. (This violates the
advice of <a href="./rfc6376#section-6.1">Section 6.1 of RFC 6376</a>.)
Reference: [<a href="./rfc7372">RFC7372</a>]; [<a href="./rfc6376" title=""DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures"">RFC6376</a>]
Submitter: M. Kucherawy
Change controller: IESG
Code: X.7.21
Sample Text: No acceptable DKIM signature found
Associated basic status code: 550
Description: This status code is returned when a message
contains one or more passing DKIM signatures,
but none are acceptable. (This violates the
advice of <a href="./rfc6376#section-6.1">Section 6.1 of RFC 6376</a>.)
Reference: [<a href="./rfc7372">RFC7372</a>]; [<a href="./rfc6376" title=""DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures"">RFC6376</a>]
Submitter: M. Kucherawy
Change controller: IESG
<span class="grey">Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7372">RFC 7372</a> Email Auth Status Codes September 2014</span>
Code: X.7.22
Sample Text: No valid author-matched DKIM signature found
Associated basic status code: 550
Description: This status code is returned when a message
contains one or more passing DKIM
signatures, but none are acceptable because
none have an identifier(s)
that matches the author address(es) found in
the From header field. This is a special
case of X.7.21. (This violates the advice
of <a href="./rfc6376#section-6.1">Section 6.1 of RFC 6376</a>.)
Reference: [<a href="./rfc7372">RFC7372</a>]; [<a href="./rfc6376" title=""DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures"">RFC6376</a>]
Submitter: M. Kucherawy
Change controller: IESG
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>. SPF Failure Codes</span>
Code: X.7.23
Sample Text: SPF validation failed
Associated basic status code: 550
Description: This status code is returned when a message
completed an SPF check that produced a
"fail" result, contrary to local policy
requirements. Used in place of 5.7.1, as
described in <a href="./rfc7208#section-8.4">Section 8.4 of RFC 7208</a>.
Reference: [<a href="./rfc7372">RFC7372</a>]; [<a href="./rfc7208" title=""Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1"">RFC7208</a>]
Submitter: M. Kucherawy
Change controller: IESG
Code: X.7.24
Sample Text: SPF validation error
Associated basic status code: 451/550
Description: This status code is returned when evaluation
of SPF relative to an arriving message
resulted in an error. Used in place of
4.4.3 or 5.5.2, as described in Sections
8.6 and 8.7 of <a href="./rfc7208">RFC 7208</a>.
Reference: [<a href="./rfc7372">RFC7372</a>]; [<a href="./rfc7208" title=""Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1"">RFC7208</a>]
Submitter: M. Kucherawy
Change controller: IESG
<span class="grey">Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7372">RFC 7372</a> Email Auth Status Codes September 2014</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3" href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>. Reverse DNS Failure Code</span>
Code: X.7.25
Sample Text: Reverse DNS validation failed
Associated basic status code: 550
Description: This status code is returned when an SMTP
client's IP address failed a reverse DNS
validation check, contrary to local policy
requirements.
Reference: [<a href="./rfc7372">RFC7372</a>]; <a href="./rfc7001#section-3">Section 3 of [RFC7001]</a>
Submitter: M. Kucherawy
Change controller: IESG
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.4" href="#section-3.4">3.4</a>. Multiple Authentication Failures Code</span>
Code: X.7.26
Sample Text: Multiple authentication checks failed
Associated basic status code: 550
Description: This status code is returned when a message
failed more than one message authentication
check, contrary to local policy requirements.
The particular mechanisms that failed are not
specified.
Reference: [<a href="./rfc7372">RFC7372</a>]
Submitter: M. Kucherawy
Change controller: IESG
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. General Considerations</span>
By the nature of the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP), only one
enhanced status code can be returned for a given exchange between
client and server. However, an operator might decide to defer or
reject a message for a plurality of reasons. Clients receiving these
codes need to consider that the failure reflected by one of these
status codes might not reflect the only reason, or the most important
reason, for non-acceptance of the message or command.
It is important to note that <a href="./rfc6376#section-6.1">Section 6.1 of [RFC6376]</a> discourages
special treatment of messages bearing no valid DKIM signature. There
are some operators that disregard this advice, a few of which go so
far as to require a valid Author Domain Signature (that is, one
matching the domain(s) in the From header field) in order to accept
the message. Moreover, some nascent technologies built atop SPF and
DKIM depend on such authentications. This work does not endorse
configurations that violate DKIM's recommendations but rather
acknowledges that they do exist and merely seeks to provide for
improved interoperability with such operators.
<span class="grey">Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7372">RFC 7372</a> Email Auth Status Codes September 2014</span>
A specific use case for these codes is mailing list software, which
processes rejections in order to remove from the subscriber set those
addresses that are no longer valid. There is a need in that case to
distinguish authentication failures from indications that the
recipient address is no longer valid.
If a receiving server performs multiple authentication checks and
more than one of them fails, thus warranting rejection of the
message, the SMTP server SHOULD use the code that indicates multiple
methods failed rather than only reporting the first one that failed.
It may be the case that one method is always expected to fail; thus,
returning that method's specific code is not information useful to
the sending agent.
The reverse IP DNS check is defined in <a href="./rfc7001#section-3">Section 3 of [RFC7001]</a>.
Any message authentication or policy enforcement technologies
developed in the future should also include registration of their own
enhanced status codes so that this kind of specific reporting is
available to operators that wish to use them.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Security Considerations</span>
Use of these codes reveals local policy with respect to email
authentication, which can be useful information to actors attempting
to deliver undesired mail. It should be noted that there is no
specific obligation to use these codes; if an operator wishes not to
reveal this aspect of local policy, it can continue using a generic
result code such as 5.7.7, 5.7.1, or even 5.7.0.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. IANA Considerations</span>
Registration of new enhanced status codes, for addition to the
Enumerated Status Codes sub-registry of the SMTP Enhanced Status
Codes Registry, can be found in <a href="#section-3">Section 3</a>.
<span class="grey">Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7372">RFC 7372</a> Email Auth Status Codes September 2014</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.
[<a id="ref-RFC3463">RFC3463</a>] Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", <a href="./rfc3463">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc3463">3463</a>, January 2003.
[<a id="ref-RFC5248">RFC5248</a>] Hansen, T. and J. Klensin, "A Registry for SMTP Enhanced
Mail System Status Codes", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp138">BCP 138</a>, <a href="./rfc5248">RFC 5248</a>, June 2008.
[<a id="ref-RFC6376">RFC6376</a>] Crocker, D., Hansen, T., and M. Kucherawy, "DomainKeys
Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", STD 76, <a href="./rfc6376">RFC 6376</a>,
September 2011.
[<a id="ref-RFC7001">RFC7001</a>] Kucherawy, M., "Message Header Field for Indicating
Message Authentication Status", <a href="./rfc7001">RFC 7001</a>, September 2013.
[<a id="ref-RFC7208">RFC7208</a>] Kitterman, S., "Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for
Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1", <a href="./rfc7208">RFC 7208</a>,
April 2014.
<span class="grey">Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7372">RFC 7372</a> Email Auth Status Codes September 2014</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="appendix-A" href="#appendix-A">Appendix A</a>. Acknowledgments</span>
Claudio Allocchio, Dave Crocker, Ned Freed, Arnt Gulbrandsen, Scott
Kitterman, Barry Leiba, Alexey Melnikov, S. Moonesamy, Hector Santos,
and Stephen Turnbull contributed to this work.
Author's Address
Murray S. Kucherawy
270 Upland Drive
San Francisco, CA 94127
USA
EMail: superuser@gmail.com
Kucherawy Standards Track [Page 8]
</pre>
|
