Complaint Feedback Loop Address Header
draft-benecke-cfbl-address-header-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9477.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Jan-Philipp Benecke | ||
| Last updated | 2021-06-29 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| IETF conflict review | conflict-review-benecke-cfbl-address-header, conflict-review-benecke-cfbl-address-header, conflict-review-benecke-cfbl-address-header, conflict-review-benecke-cfbl-address-header, conflict-review-benecke-cfbl-address-header, conflict-review-benecke-cfbl-address-header | ||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9477 (Experimental) | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-benecke-cfbl-address-header-00
Network Working Group J. Benecke
Internet-Draft CleverReach GmbH & Co. KG
Intended status: Experimental June 29, 2021
Expires: December 31, 2021
Complaint Feedback Loop Address Header
draft-benecke-cfbl-address-header-00
Abstract
This document describes a method to allow a mail sender to specify a
complaint feedback loop address as an email header and how a mail
receiver can use it. This document also defines the rules for
processing and forwarding such a complaint. The motivation for this
arises out of the absence of a standardized and automated way to
provide a complaint feedback loop address to mailbox providers.
Currently, providing and maintaining such an address to a mailbox
provider is a manual and time-consuming process.
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 https://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, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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
(https://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
Benecke Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft CFBL Address Header June 2021
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 and Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Complaining about an email . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Report email . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Mail senders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Mailbox provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Complaint report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Header Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Complaint-FBL-Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Feedback-ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Attacks on the FBL address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Enumeration attacks / provoking unsubscription . . . . . 6
7.3. GDPR and other data-regulation laws . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Complaint-FBL-Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Feedback-ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Simple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. GDPR safe report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.3. GDPR safe report with HMAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction and Motivation
Since a long time there is a way to forward manual complaints back to
e.g. a broadcast marketing list operator. The mailbox provider
provides a so-called feedback loop [RFC6449]. This feedback loop is
being used to give e.g. operators of broadcast marketing lists
feedback about resulting complaints from their marketing mailings.
Those complaints are based on manual user interaction e.g. IMAP
movement to "Junk".
As described in [RFC6449] the registration for such a feedback loop
needs to be done manually by a human at any FBL provider he wants to
receive complaints from. Which can be quite time-consuming if there
Benecke Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft CFBL Address Header June 2021
are new feedback loops rising up, or the mail sender wants to add new
ip addresses or DKIM domains. Besides, a manual process isn't well
suitable and/or doable for smaller mailbox providers.
The change of such a complaint address e.g. due to an infrastructure
change is another problem. Due to this manual process the mail
sender needs to go through all providers again and delete his
existing subscriptions and re-signup with the new complaint address.
This document addresses this problem with a new email header. It
extends the described complaint feedback loop recommendations in
[RFC6449] with an automated way to provide the complaint feedback
loop address to mail receiver.
Mail senders can add this header and willing mailbox provider can use
this header to forward the generated report to the provided complaint
address. The mail sender just needs to add a email header and isn't
required to signup manually at every feedback loop provider. Another
benefit would be the mailbox provider doesn't need to develop a
manual registration process and verification process.
A new email header has been chosen over a new DNS record in favour to
be able to easily distinguish between multiple broadcast marketing
list operators / mail senders, without the intervention of its users
or administrators. For example, if a company uses multiple sending
systems, each system can set this header on their own, without the
need of a change that has to be done by its users or administrators.
On the side of the mailbox provider, there is no need to do an
additional DNS query to get the complaint address.
This document has been created with GDPR and other data-regulation
laws in mind and to address the resulting problems in providing an
automated complaint feedback loop address, as the email may contain
personal data.
Summarised this document has following goals:
o Allow mail senders to signal that there is a complaint address
without a manual registration at all providers.
o Have a way for mailbox provider to get a complaint address without
developing an own manual registration process.
o Be able to provide a complaint address to smaller mailbox
providers who do not have a feedback loop registration process.
o Provide a GDPR compliant way for a complaint feedback loop
Benecke Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft CFBL Address Header June 2021
2. Definitions
The keywords "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 BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
The keyword "FBL" in this document is the abbreviation for "feedback
loop" and will hereafter be used.
The keyword "CFBL" in this document is the abbreviation for
"complaint feedback loop" and will hereafter be used.
The keyword "MBP" in this document is the abbreviation for "mailbox
provider" and will hereafter be used.
3. Requirements
3.1. Complaining about an email
The email (sent by mail sender/broadcast marketing list operator)
about which a complaint should be sent MUST have at least one valid
[DKIM] signature, which covers the From-Header [MAIL] domain. The
email about which a complaint should be sent MUST be aligned as
specified in [DMARC]. The Complaint-FBL-Address header MUST be
covered by the signature, it MUST be included in the "h=" tag of the
valid DKIM-Signature header field.
If the message isn't properly aligned, nor it does have the required
header coverage by [DKIM], the MBP SHOULD NOT send a report email.
This ensures that only reports are sent to the complaint address that
are based on an authenticated email.
3.2. Report email
The report email (sent by MBP to mail sender) MUST have a valid
[DKIM] signature and MUST cover the From-Header [MAIL] domain.
If the message does not have the required valid [DKIM], the mail
sender SHOULD NOT process this email.
It is highly RECOMMENDED that the mail sender does further
plausibility checks.
Benecke Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft CFBL Address Header June 2021
4. Implementation
4.1. Mail senders
A mail sender that wishes to receive complaints about their mailings
MUST place a Complaint-FBL-Address in the message. The mail sender
MAY place a Feedback-ID header in the message out of various reasons.
The receiving complaint FBL address, placed in the message, MUST
accept [ARF] compatible reports. It is highly RECOMMENDED processing
these ARF reports automatically and unsubscribe the complaining
receivers.
The mail sender MUST take action to address the described
requirements in Section 3.
4.2. Mailbox provider
An MBP MAY process the complaint and forward it to the complaint FBL
address.
If the MBP wants to process the complaints and forwards it, he MUST
query the Complaint-FBL-Address header.
An [ARF] compatible report MUST be sent when a manual action has been
taken, e.g. when a receiver marks a mail as spam, by clicking the
"This is spam"-button in any web portal or by moving a mail to junk
folder, this includes also IMAP/POP3 movements. The MBP SHOULD NOT
send any report when an automatic decisions has been made, e.g. spam
filtering.
The MBP MUST validate and take action to address the described
requirements in Section 3.
5. Complaint report
The complaint report (sent by MBP to mail sender) MUST be an [ARF]
report. The report MUST contain at least the Message-ID [MAIL] or
the header "Feedback-ID" of the complaining email.
The MBP MAY omit all further headers and/or body to comply with any
data-regulation laws.
It is highly RECOMMENDED that, if used, the Feedback-ID includes a
hard to forge component such as an [HMAC] using a secret key, instead
of a plain-text string.
Benecke Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft CFBL Address Header June 2021
6. Header Syntax
6.1. Complaint-FBL-Address
The following ABNF imports fields, WSP, CRLF and addr-spec from
[MAIL].
fields /= cfbl-address
cfbl-address = "Complaint-FBL-Address:" 0*1WSP "<" addr-spec ">" CRLF
6.2. Feedback-ID
The following ABNF imports fields, WSP, CRLF and atext from [MAIL].
It imports ALPHA and DIGIT from [RFC5234].
fields /= feedback-id
feedback-id = "Feedback-ID:" 0*1WSP fid CRLF
fid = 1*(atext | ":")
7. Security Considerations
This section discusses possible security issues, and their possible
solutions, of a complaint FBL address header.
7.1. Attacks on the FBL address
As any other email address, a complaint FBL addresses can be an
attack vector for malicious emails. The complaint FBL addresses can
be for example flooded with spam. This is an existing problem with
any existing email address and isn't newly created by this document.
The broadcast marketing lists operator/mail sender must take
appropriated measures. One possible countermeasure would be a rate
limit on the delivering IP. However, this should be done with
caution, the normal FBL email traffic must not be impaired.
7.2. Enumeration attacks / provoking unsubscription
A malicious person can send a bunch of forged ARF reports to a known
complaint FBL addresses and try to guess a Message-ID/Feedback-ID.
He might try to do a mass-unsubscription of a complete marketing
list. This is also an already existing problem with the current FBL
implementation.
Benecke Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft CFBL Address Header June 2021
The receiving broadcast marketing lists operator/mail sender must
take appropriated measures.
As a countermeasure it is recommended that the Message-ID and, if
used, Feedback-ID uses a hard to forge component such as an [HMAC]
using a secret key, instead of a plain-text string, to make an
enumeration attack impossible.
If it is impossible for the broadcast marketing lists operator/mail
sender to use a hard to forge component, the broadcast marketing
lists operator/mail sender should take measures to avoid enumeration
attacks.
7.3. GDPR and other data-regulation laws
Providing such a header itself doesn't produce a data-regulation law
problem. The resulting ARF report, that is sent to the mail sender
by the MBP, may conflict with a data-regulation law, as it may
contain personal data.
This document already addresses some parts of this problem and
describes a data-regulation law safe way to send a FBL report. As
described in Section 5, the MBP may omit the complete body and/or
headers and just sends the required fields. Nevertheless, each MBP
must consider on their own, if this implementation is acceptable and
complies with the existing data-regulation laws.
As described in Section 5, it is also highly RECOMMENDED that the
Message-ID and, if used, the Feedback-ID includes a hard to forge
component such as an [HMAC] using a secret key, instead of a plain-
text string. See Section 9.3 for an example.
Using HMAC, or any other hard to forge component, ensures that only
the mail sender has knowledge about the data.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. Complaint-FBL-Address
The IANA is requested to register a new header field, per [RFC3864],
into the "Permanent Message Header Field Names" registry:
Benecke Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft CFBL Address Header June 2021
Header field name: Complaint-FBL-Address
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: experimental
Author/Change controller: Jan-Philipp Benecke <jpb@cleverreach.com>
Specification document: this document
8.2. Feedback-ID
The IANA is requested to register a new header field, per [RFC3864],
into the "Permanent Message Header Field Names" registry:
Header field name: Feedback-ID
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: experimental
Author/Change controller: Jan-Philipp Benecke <jpb@cleverreach.com>
Specification document: this document
9. Examples
For simplicity the DKIM header has been shortened.
9.1. Simple
Email about the report will be generated:
Return-Path: <sender@mailer.example.com>
From: Awesome Newsletter <newsletter@example.com>
To: me@example.net
Subject: Super awesome deals for you
Complaint-FBL-Address: <fbl@example.com>
Message-ID: <a37e51bf-3050-2aab-1234-543a0828d14a@mailer.example.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
This is a super awesome newsletter.
Resulting ARF report:
Benecke Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft CFBL Address Header June 2021
Feedback-Type: abuse
User-Agent: FBL/0.1
Version: 0.1
Original-Mail-From: sender@mailer.example.com
Arrival-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:31:38 GMT
Reported-Domain: example.com
Source-Ip: 192.0.2.1
------=_Part_240060962_1083385345.1592993161900
Content-Type: text/rfc822; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-Path: <sender@mailer.example.com>
From: Awesome Newsletter <newsletter@example.com>
To: me@example.net
Subject: Super awesome deals for you
Complaint-FBL-Address: <fbl@example.com>
Message-ID: <a37e51bf-3050-2aab-1234-543a0828d14a@mailer.example.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
This is a super awesome newsletter.
------=_Part_240060962_1083385345.1592993161900--
9.2. GDPR safe report
Email about the report will be generated:
Return-Path: <sender@mailer.example.com>
From: Awesome Newsletter <newsletter@example.com>
To: me@example.net
Subject: Super awesome deals for you
Complaint-FBL-Address: <fbl@example.com>
Message-ID: <a37e51bf-3050-2aab-1234-543a0828d14a@mailer.example.com>
Feedback-ID: 111:222:333:4444
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
This is a super awesome newsletter.
Resulting ARF report contains only the Feedback-ID:
Benecke Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft CFBL Address Header June 2021
Feedback-Type: abuse
User-Agent: FBL/0.1
Version: 0.1
Original-Mail-From: sender@mailer.example.com
Arrival-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:31:38 GMT
Reported-Domain: example.com
Source-Ip: 192.0.2.1
------=_Part_240060962_1083385345.1592993161900
Content-Type: text/rfc822-headers; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Feedback-ID: 111:222:333:4444
------=_Part_240060962_1083385345.1592993161900--
9.3. GDPR safe report with HMAC
Email about the report will be generated:
Return-Path: <sender@mailer.example.com>
From: Awesome Newsletter <newsletter@example.com>
To: me@example.net
Subject: Super awesome deals for you
Complaint-FBL-Address: <fbl@example.com>
Message-ID: <a37e51bf-3050-2aab-1234-543a0828d14a@mailer.example.com>
Feedback-ID: 3789e1ae1938aa2f0dfdfa48b20d8f8bc6c21ac34fc5023d63f9e64a
43dfedc0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
This is a super awesome newsletter.
Resulting ARF report contains only the Feedback-ID:
Feedback-Type: abuse
User-Agent: FBL/0.1
Version: 0.1
Original-Mail-From: sender@mailer.example.com
Arrival-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:31:38 GMT
Reported-Domain: example.com
Source-Ip: 192.0.2.1
------=_Part_240060962_1083385345.1592993161900
Content-Type: text/rfc822-headers; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Feedback-ID: 3789e1ae1938aa2f0dfdfa48b20d8f8bc6c21ac34fc5023d63f9e64a
43dfedc0
------=_Part_240060962_1083385345.1592993161900--
Benecke Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft CFBL Address Header June 2021
10. Acknowledgments
Technical and editorial reviews and comments were provided by
colleagues at CleverReach, and the colleagues at Certified Senders
Alliance. Legal reviews and comments were provided by the colleagues
at the Certified Senders Alliance.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[ARF] Shafranovich, Y., Levine, J., and M. Kucherawy, "An
Extensible Format for Email Feedback Reports", RFC 5965,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5965, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5965>.
[DKIM] Crocker, D., Ed., Hansen, T., Ed., and M. Kucherawy, Ed.,
"DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures", STD 76,
RFC 6376, DOI 10.17487/RFC6376, September 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6376>.
[DMARC] Kucherawy, M., Ed. and E. Zwicky, Ed., "Domain-based
Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance
(DMARC)", RFC 7489, DOI 10.17487/RFC7489, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7489>.
[MAIL] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5322, October 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5322>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Benecke Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft CFBL Address Header June 2021
11.2. Informative References
[HMAC] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.
[RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3864, September 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3864>.
[RFC6449] Falk, J., Ed., "Complaint Feedback Loop Operational
Recommendations", RFC 6449, DOI 10.17487/RFC6449, November
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6449>.
Author's Address
Jan-Philipp Benecke
CleverReach GmbH & Co. KG
Schafjueckenweg 2
Rastede 26180
Germany
Phone: +49 4402 97390-16
Email: jpb@cleverreach.com
Benecke Expires December 31, 2021 [Page 12]