Network Working Group J. Degener
Request for Comments: 5293 P. Guenther
Category: Standards Track Sendmail, Inc.
August 2008
Sieve Email Filtering: Editheader Extension
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document defines two new actions for the "Sieve" email filtering
language that add and delete email header fields.
1. Introduction
Email header fields are a flexible and easy-to-understand means of
communication between email processors. This extension enables sieve
scripts to interact with other components that consume or produce
header fields by allowing the script to delete and add header fields.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
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].
Conventions for notations are as in Section 1.1 of [SIEVE], including
use of the "Usage:" label for the definition of action and tagged
arguments syntax.
The term "header field" is used here as in [IMAIL] to mean a logical
line of an email message header.
3. Capability Identifier
The capability string associated with the extension defined in this
document is "editheader".
Degener & Guenther Standards Track [Page 1]RFC 5293 Sieve Email Filtering: Editheader Extension August 2008
4. Action addheader
Usage: "addheader" [":last"] <field-name: string> <value: string>
The addheader action adds a header field to the existing message
header. If the field-name is not a valid 7-bit US-ASCII header field
name, as described by the [IMAIL] "field-name" nonterminal syntax
element, the implementation MUST flag an error. The addheader action
does not affect Sieve's implicit keep.
If the specified field value does not match the [IMAIL]
"unstructured" nonterminal syntax element or exceeds a length limit
set by the implementation, the implementation MUST either flag an
error or encode the field using folding white space and the encodings
described in [MIME3] or [MIMEPARAM] to be compliant with [IMAIL].
An implementation MAY impose a length limit onto the size of the
encoded header field; such a limit MUST NOT be less than 998
characters, not including the terminating CRLF supplied by the
implementation.
By default, the header field is inserted at the beginning of the
existing message header. If the optional flag ":last" is specified,
it is appended at the end.
Example:
/* Don't redirect if we already redirected */
if not header :contains "X-Sieve-Filtered"
["<kim@job.example.com>", "<kim@home.example.com>"]
{
addheader "X-Sieve-Filtered" "<kim@job.example.com>";
redirect "kim@home.example.com";
}
5. Action deleteheader
Usage: "deleteheader" [":index" <fieldno: number> [":last"]]
[COMPARATOR] [MATCH-TYPE]
<field-name: string>
[<value-patterns: string-list>]
By default, the deleteheader action deletes all occurrences of the
named header field. The deleteheader action does not affect Sieve's
implicit keep.
Degener & Guenther Standards Track [Page 2]RFC 5293 Sieve Email Filtering: Editheader Extension August 2008
The field-name is mandatory and always matched as a case-insensitive
US-ASCII string. If the field-name is not a valid 7-bit header field
name as described by the [IMAIL] "field-name" nonterminal syntax
element, the implementation MUST flag an error.
The value-patterns, if specified, restrict which occurrences of the
header field are deleted to those whose values match any of the
specified value-patterns, the matching being according to the match-
type and comparator and performed as if by the "header" test. In
particular, leading and trailing whitespace in the field values is
ignored. If no value-patterns are specified, then the comparator and
match-type options are silently ignored.
If :index <fieldno> is specified, the attempts to match a value are
limited to the <fieldno> occurrence of the named header field,
beginning at 1, the first named header field. If :last is specified,
the count is backwards; 1 denotes the last named header field, 2 the
second to last, and so on. The counting happens before the <value-
patterns> match, if any. For example:
deleteheader :index 1 :contains "Delivered-To"
"bob@example.com";
deletes the first "Delivered-To" header field if it contains the
string "bob@example.com" (not the first "Delivered-To" field that
contains "bob@example.com").
It is not an error if no header fields match the conditions in the
deleteheader action or if the :index argument is greater than the
number of named header fields.
The implementation MUST flag an error if :last is specified without
also specifying :index.
6. Implementation Limitations on Changes
As a matter of local policy, implementations MAY limit which header
fields may be deleted and which header fields may be added. However,
implementations MUST NOT permit attempts to delete "Received" and
"Auto-Submitted" header fields and MUST permit both addition and
deletion of the "Subject" header field.
If a script tries to make a change that isn't permitted, the attempt
MUST be silently ignored.
Degener & Guenther Standards Track [Page 3]RFC 5293 Sieve Email Filtering: Editheader Extension August 2008
7. Interaction with Other Sieve Extensions
Actions that generate [MDN], [DSN], or similar disposition messages
MUST do so using the original, unmodified message header. Similarly,
if an error terminates processing of the script, the original message
header MUST be used when doing the implicit keep required by Section
2.10.6 of [SIEVE].
All other actions that store, send, or alter the message MUST do so
with the current set of header fields. This includes the addheader
and deleteheader actions themselves. For example, the following
leaves the message unchanged:
addheader "X-Hello" "World";
deleteheader :index 1 "X-Hello";
Similarly, given a message with three or more "X-Hello" header
fields, the following example deletes the first and third of them,
not the first and second:
deleteheader :index 1 "X-Hello";
deleteheader :index 2 "X-Hello";
Tests and actions such as "exists", "header", or "vacation"
[VACATION] that examine header fields MUST examine the current state
of a header as modified by any actions that have taken place so far.
As an example, the "header" test in the following fragment will
always evaluate to true, regardless of whether or not the incoming
message contained an "X-Hello" header field:
addheader "X-Hello" "World";
if header :contains "X-Hello" "World"
{
fileinto "international";
}
However, if the presence or value of a header field affects how the
implementation parses or decodes other parts of the message, then,
for the purposes of that parsing or decoding, the implementation MAY
ignore some or all changes made to those header fields. For example,
in an implementation that supports the [BODY] extension, "body" tests
may be unaffected by deleting or adding "Content-Type" or "Content-
Transfer-Encoding" header fields. This does not rescind the
requirement that changes to those header fields affect direct tests;
only the semantic side effects of changes to the fields may be
ignored.
Degener & Guenther Standards Track [Page 4]RFC 5293 Sieve Email Filtering: Editheader Extension August 2008
For the purpose of weeding out duplicates, a message modified by
addheader or deleteheader MUST be considered the same as the original
message. For example, in an implementation that obeys the constraint
in Section 2.10.3 of [SIEVE] and does not deliver the same message to
a folder more than once, the following code fragment
keep;
addheader "X-Flavor" "vanilla";
keep;
MUST only file one message. It is up to the implementation to pick
which of the redundant "fileinto" or "keep" actions is executed, and
which ones are ignored.
The "implicit keep" is thought to be executed at the end of the
script, after the headers have been modified. (However, a canceled
"implicit keep" remains canceled.)
8. IANA Considerations
The following template specifies the IANA registration of the Sieve
extension specified in this document:
To: iana@iana.org
Subject: Registration of new Sieve extension
Capability name: editheader
Description: Adds actions 'addheader' and 'deleteheader' that
modify the header of the message being processed
RFC number: RFC 5293
Contact Address: The Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters&imc.org>
9. Security Considerations
Someone with write access to a user's script storage may use this
extension to generate headers that a user would otherwise be shielded
from (e.g., by a gateway Mail Transport Agent (MTA) that removes
them).
This is the first Sieve extension to be standardized that allows
alteration of messages being processed by Sieve engines. A Sieve
script that uses Sieve tests defined in [SIEVE], the editheader
extension, and the redirect action back to the same user can keep
some state between different invocations of the same script for the
same message. But note that it would not be possible to introduce an
infinite loop using any such script, because each iteration adds a
new Received header field, so email loop prevention described in
[SMTP] will eventually non deliver the message, and because the
Degener & Guenther Standards Track [Page 5]RFC 5293 Sieve Email Filtering: Editheader Extension August 2008
editheader extension is explicitly prohibited to alter or delete
Received header fields (i.e., it can't interfere with loop
prevention).
A sieve filter that removes header fields may unwisely destroy
evidence about the path a message has taken.
Any change in message content may interfere with digital signature
mechanisms that include the header in the signed material. For
example, changes to (or deletion/addition of) header fields included
in the "SHOULD be included in the signature" list in Section 5.5 of
[DKIM] can invalidate DKIM signatures. This also includes DKIM
signatures that guarantee a header field absence.
The editheader extension doesn't directly affect [IMAIL] header field
signatures generated using [SMIME] or [OPENPGP], because these
signature schemes include a separate copy of the header fields inside
the signed message/rfc822 body part. However, software written to
detect differences between the inner (signed) copy of header fields
and the outer (modified by editheader) header fields might be
affected by changes made by editheader.
Since normal message delivery adds "Received" header fields and other
trace fields to the beginning of a message, many such digital
signature mechanisms are impervious to headers prefixed to a message,
and will work with "addheader" unless :last is used.
Any decision mechanism in a user's filter that is based on headers is
vulnerable to header spoofing. For example, if the user adds an
APPROVED header or tag, a malicious sender may add that tag or header
themselves. One way to guard against this is to delete or rename any
such headers or stamps prior to processing the message.
10. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Eric Allman, Cyrus Daboo, Matthew Elvey, Ned Freed, Arnt
Gulbrandsen, Kjetil Torgrim Homme, Simon Josefsson, Will Lee, William
Leibzon, Mark E. Mallett, Chris Markle, Alexey Melnikov, Randall
Schwartz, Aaron Stone, Nigel Swinson, and Rand Wacker for extensive
corrections and suggestions.
Degener & Guenther Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5293 Sieve Email Filtering: Editheader Extension August 2008
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[IMAIL] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822,
April 2001.
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[MIME3] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII
Text", RFC 2047, November 1996.
[MIMEPARAM] Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and
Encoded Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and
Continuations", RFC 2231, November 1997.
[SIEVE] Guenther, P., Ed., and T. Showalter, Ed., "Sieve: An
Email Filtering Language", RFC 5228, January 2008.
11.2. Informative References
[BODY] Degener, J. and P. Guenther, "Sieve Email Filtering:
Body Extension", RFC 5173, April 2008.
[DKIM] Allman, E., Callas, J., Delany, M., Libbey, M., Fenton,
J., and M. Thomas, "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)
Signatures", RFC 4871, May 2007.
[DSN] Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message
Format for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3464,
January 2003.
[MDN] Hansen, T., Ed., and G. Vaudreuil, Ed., "Message
Disposition Notification", RFC 3798, May 2004.
[OPENPGP] Elkins, M., Del Torto, D., Levien, R., and T. Roessler,
"MIME Security with OpenPGP", RFC 3156, August 2001.
[SMIME] Ramsdell, B., Ed., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specification",
RFC 3851, July 2004.
[SMTP] Klensin, J., Ed., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC
2821, April 2001.
Degener & Guenther Standards Track [Page 7]RFC 5293 Sieve Email Filtering: Editheader Extension August 2008
[VACATION] Showalter, T. and N. Freed, Ed., "Sieve Email Filtering:
Vacation Extension", RFC 5230, January 2008.
Authors' Addresses
Jutta Degener
5245 College Ave, Suite #127
Oakland, CA 94618
EMail: jutta@pobox.com
Philip Guenther
Sendmail, Inc.
6475 Christie Ave., Ste 350
Emeryville, CA 94608
EMail: guenther@sendmail.com
Degener & Guenther Standards Track [Page 8]RFC 5293 Sieve Email Filtering: Editheader Extension August 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Degener & Guenther Standards Track [Page 9]
