[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-vaudreuil...] [Tracker] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Errata]
PROPOSED STANDARD
Errata Exist
Network Working Group G. White
Request for Comments: 4865 Independent
Updates: 3463, 3464 G. Vaudreuil
Category: Standards Track Alcatel-Lucent
May 2007
SMTP Submission Service Extension for Future Message Release
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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract
This memo defines an extension to the SMTP submission protocol for a
client to indicate a future time for the message to be released for
delivery. This extension permits a client to use server-based
storage for a message that should be held in queue until an appointed
time in the future. This is useful for clients which do not have
local storage or are otherwise unable to release a message for
delivery at an appointed time.
1. Introduction
There is a widely used feature within the voice messaging community
to compose and send a message for delivery in the future. This is
useful for sending announcements to be heard at the beginning of a
work day, to send birthday greetings a day or so ahead, or to use as
a lightweight facility to build a personal reminder service.
This extension uses the SMTP submission protocol [n3] to allow a
client, when submitting a message, to indicate a future time for the
message to be released for delivery.
White & Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4865 SMTP Future Message Release May 2007
2. Terminology
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 [n1].
3. Framework
The Future Message Release service extension for SMTP submission uses
the SMTP service extension mechanism [n4] to extend the SMTP
submission protocol [n3]. The following SMTP submission service
extension is hereby defined:
The name of the SMTP submission service extension is "Future Message
Release".
1) The Extended Hello (EHLO) keyword associated with this service
extension is "FUTURERELEASE".
2) Two required parameters, the max-future-release-interval and the
max-future-release-date-time, are combined with the EHLO keyword in
the manner specified in [n4].
The max-future-release-interval is a positive integer indicating the
maximum amount of time for which the message submission server (MSA)
will hold messages for future release.
Using ABNF [n2], the syntax of this parameter is as follows:
future-release-integer = %x31-39 *8DIGIT
; integer in the range 1-999999999
; measured in seconds
max-future-release-interval = future-release-integer
The max-future-release-date-time is a timestamp, normalized to
Universal Coordinated Time (UTC), indicating the most remote date
and time in the future until which the MSA will hold messages for
future release.
Using ABNF [n2], the syntax of this parameter is as follows:
max-future-release-date-time = date-time
where the format of date-time is defined in [n10].
White & Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4865 SMTP Future Message Release May 2007
3) When forming the portion of the EHLO reply containing the
FUTURERELEASE keyword, the keyword is followed by the max-future-
release-interval, and then the max-future-release-date-time. The
keyword and two values are delimited by spaces.
For example, the ABNF for a continuation line in the EHLO response
that contains the FUTURERELEASE keyword is:
line = "250-FUTURERELEASE" SP max-future-release-interval
SP max-future-release-date-time
4) One required parameter, the hold-param, is added to the MAIL
command using either the keyword "HOLDFOR" or the keyword
"HOLDUNTIL".
The HOLDFOR parameter value is a future-release-interval, which is
a positive integer indicating the amount of time the message is to
be held by the MSA before release.
The HOLDUNTIL parameter value is a future-release-date-time, which
is a timestamp, normalized to UTC, indicating the future date and
time until which the message is to be held by the MSA before
release.
Using ABNF [n2], the syntax of this parameter is as follows:
future-release-interval = future-release-integer
future-release-date-time = Internet-style-date-time-UTC
hold-for-param = "HOLDFOR=" future-release-interval
hold-until-param = "HOLDUNTIL=" future-release-date-time
hold-param = hold-for-param / hold-until-param
The absence of this parameter on the MAIL command does not imply a
default value for this parameter.
5) The maximum length of a MAIL command is increased by 34 characters
by the possible addition of the hold-param.
6) No additional SMTP verbs are defined by this extension.
7) This service extension is appropriate only for the SMTP submission
protocol [n3]. This service extension is not appropriate for
standard SMTP [n4].
White & Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4865 SMTP Future Message Release May 2007
4. Behavior
It is unfortunate to define two seemingly identical ways to indicate
a future message release time. When the client has both accurate
time and accurate time zone information, either interval or date-time
can be trivially calculated from the other. However, in the current
world of clients, there are clients with accurate local time but no
indication of their time zone, and clients without a suitably
accurate clock. Based on the limited facilities available to these
time-challenged clients, it is likely that only one or the other of
these mechanisms will be useful.
It is believed that servers will have accurate time, and can
trivially convert between these mechanisms. It is also accepted that
the protocol and implementation overhead of offering these two
mechanisms is low, and that few interoperability challenges are
anticipated.
4.1. SMTP Client
1) An SMTP client preparing to use Future Message Release MUST first
verify that the MSA supports this extension.
2) An SMTP client using Future Message Release MUST include one, and
only one, hold-param with the MAIL command.
3) An SMTP client using Future Message Release with the "for" option
of the hold-param MUST ensure that the future-release-interval is
less than or equal to the max-future-release-interval advertised
by the MSA.
4) An SMTP client using Future Message Release with the "until"
option of the hold-param MUST ensure that the future-release-
date-time is earlier than or equal to the max-future-release-
date-time advertised by the MSA.
4.2. MSA
1) An MSA supporting Future Message Release MUST comply with the SMTP
submission protocol as described in [n3].
2) An MSA supporting Future Message Release MUST NOT advertise this
support (i.e. include the FUTURERELEASE keyword in its EHLO reply)
on any port other than the submission port.
White & Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4865 SMTP Future Message Release May 2007
3) An MSA supporting Future Message Release MUST include the
FUTURERELEASE keyword, and associated max-future-release-interval
and max-future-release-date-time parameters, in its reply to the
EHLO command.
4) An MSA supporting Future Message Release MUST accept a MAIL
command containing a valid hold-param, given that the MAIL command
contains no other errors.
5) An MSA that accepts a message with a request for Future Message
Release indicating the "for" option MUST NOT release the message
until the amount of time specified in the future-release-interval
elapses.
6) An MSA that accepts a message with a request for Future Message
Release indicating the "until" option MUST NOT release the message
until the date and time indicated by the future-release-date-time
occurs.
7) An MSA supporting Future Message Release MUST reject a MAIL
command containing the "for" option specifying a value that is
greater than the advertised max-future-release-interval, or
otherwise invalid.
8) An MSA supporting Future Message Release MUST reject a MAIL
command containing the "until" option specifying a value that is
later than the advertised max-future-release-date-time, or
otherwise invalid.
9) An MSA supporting Future Message Release MUST reject a MAIL
command containing more than one hold-param.
10) An MSA supporting Future Message Release, when rejecting a MAIL
command per items 7, 8, or 9, above, SHOULD supply the reply code
501 (syntax error in parameters or arguments [n4]) in the reply.
11) An MSA supporting Future Message Release, when rejecting a MAIL
command per items 7, 8, or 9, above, SHOULD supply the Enhanced
Mail System Status Code 5.5.4 (invalid command arguments [i1]) in
the reply.
White & Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4865 SMTP Future Message Release May 2007
5. Protocol Interactions
5.1. Interaction with the DSN SMTP Service Extensions
The Delivery Status Notification (DSN) service extension is described
in [n7], and DSN message format is described in [n8].
5.1.1. SMTP Client Interaction with DSN
1) An SMTP client MUST NOT request Future Message Release when
sending a DSN to the MSA.
5.1.2. MSA Interaction with DSN
1) If an MSA generates a DSN for a message that includes a Future
Message Release request, the MSA MUST include an Arrival-Date
field in the machine-readable body part of the DSN.
2) If an MSA generates a DSN for a message that includes a Future
Message Release request, the MSA MUST include a Future-Release-
Request field in the machine-readable body part of the DSN. The
value of this field is the value of the HOLD parameter contained
in the MAIL command of the original message.
The Future-Release-Request field is an extension to the set of DSN
per-message fields described in [n8]. Using ABNF [n2], the syntax
of this new field is as follows:
orig-hold-param-value = ("for;" future-release-interval) /
("until;" future-release-date-time)
; this is the value of the HOLD param from
; the MAIL command of the original message
future-release-request-field = "Future-Release-Request:"
orig-hold-param-value
5.2. Interaction with the DELIVERBY SMTP Service Extension
If an MSA supports the Future Message release and Deliver By service
extensions, it is possible for an SMTP client to make simultaneous
requests for future message release and deliver-by times when
submitting a message. A problem will occur if the future message
release time is farther in the future than the deliver-by time. In
order to honor the deliver-by request, the future message release
request has to be ignored. In order to honor the future message
release request, the deliver-by request has to be ignored. This
section addresses that problem. The Deliver By extension is
described in [n6].
White & Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4865 SMTP Future Message Release May 2007
5.2.1. SMTP Client Interaction with DELIVERBY
1) When an SMTP client wishes to use the Future Message Release and
Deliver By extensions with the same message, the client MUST
ensure that the specified deliver-by time is farther in the future
than the specified ("until" option) or implied ("for" option)
future message release time.
5.2.2. MSA Interaction with DELIVERBY
1) If an MSA supports Future Message Release and Deliver By
extensions, and receives a message requesting the use of both
extensions, the MSA MUST reject the MAIL command if it determines
that the future message release time is farther in the future than
the deliver-by time.
2) When an MSA is rejecting a MAIL command per item 1, above, it
SHOULD supply the reply code 501 (syntax error in parameters or
arguments [n4]) in the reply.
3) When an MSA is rejecting a MAIL command per item 1, above, it
SHOULD supply the Enhanced Mail System Status Code 5.5.4 (invalid
command arguments [i1]) in the reply.
5.3. Interaction with the MDN Function
The Message Disposition Notification (MDN) function is described in
[n9].
5.3.1. SMTP Client Interaction with MDN
1) An SMTP client MUST NOT request Future Message Release when
sending an MDN to the MSA.
6. Security Considerations
The Future Message Release service extension presents a number of
security considerations:
1) Unauthorized future-release messages provide a means to overwhelm
the storage of an MSA. The authorization mechanisms required for
the base mail submission protocol [n3] are expected to provide
appropriate defense against such attacks.
2) Authorized future message release without a per-user quota may
also provide a way to overwhelm an MSA's storage. An MSA's future
release message storage SHOULD be subject to a per-user quota.
White & Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4865 SMTP Future Message Release May 2007
3) If an MSA is imposing a per-user quota on future-release message
storage, and detects that an incoming future-release message will
exceed the user's future-release message storage quota, the MSA
MUST reject the MAIL command.
4) When an MSA is rejecting a MAIL command per 5.3, it SHOULD supply
the reply code 552 (requested mail action aborted: exceeded
storage allocation [n4]) in the reply.
5) When an MSA is rejecting a MAIL command per 5.3, it SHOULD supply
the new Enhanced Mail System Status Code defined for this purpose.
This new status code updates [i1].
X.7.16 Future release per-user message quota exceeded
There is insufficient per-user quota to queue the message for
future release. This code suggests the client can submit again
only after the per-user queue has drained.
X.7.17 Future release system message quota exceeded
There is insufficient system quota to queue the message for
future release. This code suggests the client can submit again
after the system queue has drained.
6) Inaccurate time on the MSA may result in premature or delayed
release of messages. Both HOLDUNTIL and HOLDFOR request
mechanisms are sensitive to inaccurate or changing clocks on the
MSA.
7) Some element of deception is inherent in the future message
release concept. The message release time is intentionally
delayed past the time it would otherwise be released; hence, the
message delivery time is delayed past the time it would otherwise
be delivered. This extension provides no mechanism for hiding
this from the message recipient. The RFC 2822 [n5] message
header, and specifically the Date field, remain unchanged after
submission. While a sending client MAY elect to place the
future-message-release-time as the date in the Date field, there
is no requirement or expectation that the Received fields and
other trace information be modified by the transport system to
further this deception.
White & Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 4865 SMTP Future Message Release May 2007
7. IANA Considerations
This extension has been added to the list of SMTP Service Extensions
on the Mail Parameters Web page.
8. Acknowledgments
Much of the credit for this document is due to the LEMONADE working
group. Through many revisions, the discussion resulted in
fundamental new understandings of this protocol and corresponding
refinement of the implied requirements and protocol. Special thanks
to those who patiently lead the WG to understand that doing both
interval and date-time was the pragmatically correct approach to the
needs of diverse clients.
9. Normative References
[n1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[n2] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
[n3] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission for Mail", RFC
4409, April 2006.
[n4] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821, April
2001.
[n5] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April 2001.
[n6] Newman, D., "Deliver By SMTP Service Extension", RFC 2852, June
2000.
[n7] Moore, K., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service
Extension for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs)", RFC 3461,
January 2003.
[n8] Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for
Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3464, January 2003.
[n9] Hansen, T. and G. Vaudreuil, "Message Disposition
Notification", RFC 3798, May 2004.
[n10] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002
White & Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 4865 SMTP Future Message Release May 2007
10. Informative References
[i1] Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", RFC 3463,
January 2003.
Authors' Addresses
Gregory A. White
6519 Camille Ave.
Dallas, TX 75252
USA
EMail: g.a.white@tx.rr.com
Gregory M. Vaudreuil
Alcatel-Lucent
9489 Bartgis Ct
Frederick, MD 21702
USA
EMail: GregV@ieee.org
White & Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 4865 SMTP Future Message Release May 2007
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
White & Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 11]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/
