A No Soliciting Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service Extension
RFC 3865
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(September 2004; No errata)
Was draft-malamud-no-soliciting (individual in app area)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Carl Malamud | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 3865 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Harald Alvestrand | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Network Working Group C. Malamud
Request for Comments: 3865 Memory Palace Press
Category: Standards Track September 2004
A No Soliciting Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)
Service 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.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
This document proposes an extension to Soliciting Simple Mail
Transfer Protocol (SMTP) for an electronic mail equivalent to the
real-world "No Soliciting" sign. In addition to the service
extension, a new message header and extensions to the existing
"received" message header are described.
Malamud Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3865 No Soliciting September 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. The Spam Pandemic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. No Soliciting in the Real World. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. No Soliciting and Electronic Mail. . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. The No-Soliciting SMTP Service Extension . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. The EHLO Exchange. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Solicitation Class Keywords. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1. Note on Choice of Solicitation Class Keywords. . 8
2.3. The MAIL FROM Command. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4. Error Reporting and Enhanced Mail Status Codes . . . . . 10
2.5. Solicitation Mail Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.6. Insertion of Solicitation Keywords in Trace Fields . . . 11
2.7. Relay of Messages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.8. No Default Solicitation Class. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1. The Mail Parameters Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. Trace Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. The Solicitation Mail Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Author's Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Collected ABNF Descriptions (Normative) . . . . . . . 18
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Malamud Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3865 No Soliciting September 2004
1. Introduction
1.1. The Spam Pandemic
Unsolicited Bulk Email (UBE), otherwise known as spam, has become as
one of the most pressing issues on the Internet. One oft-quoted
study estimated that spam would cost businesses $13 billion in 2003
[Ferris]. In April 2003, AOL reported that it had blocked 2.37
billion pieces of UBE in a single day [CNET]. And, in a sure sign
that UBE has become of pressing concern, numerous politicians have
begun to issue pronouncements and prescriptions for fighting this
epidemic [Schumer][FTC].
A variety of mechanisms from the technical community have been
proposed and/or implemented to fight UBE:
o Whitelists are lists of known non-spammers. For example, Habeas,
Inc. maintains a Habeas User List (HUL) of people who have agreed
to not spam. By including a haiku in email headers and enforcing
copyright on that ditty, they enforce their anti-spamming terms of
service [Habeas].
o Blacklists are lists of known spammers or ISPs that allow spam
[ROKSO].
o Spam filters run client-side or server-side to filter out spam
based on whitelists, blacklists, and textual and header analysis
[Assassin].
o A large number of documents address the overall technical
considerations for the control of UBE [crocker-spam-techconsider],
operational considerations for SMTP agents [RFC2505], and various
extensions to the protocols to support UBE identification and
filtering [danisch-dns-rr-smtp][daboo-sieve-spamtest][crouzet-
amtp].
o Various proposals have been advanced for "do not spam" lists, akin
to the Federal Trade Commission's "Do Not Call" list for
telemarketers [FTC.TSR].
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
Malamud Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3865 No Soliciting September 2004
1.2. No Soliciting in the Real World
Municipalities frequently require solicitors to register with the
town government. And, in many cases, the municipalities prohibit
soliciting in residences where the occupant has posted a sign. The
town of West Newbury, Massachusetts, for example, requires:
"It shall be unlawful for any canvasser or solicitor to enter the
premises of a resident or business who has displayed a 'No
Trespassing' or 'No Soliciting' sign or poster. Further, it shall
be unlawful for canvassers or solicitors to ignore a resident or
business person's no solicitation directive or remain on private
property after its owner has indicated that the canvasser or
solicitor is not welcome" [Newbury].
Registration requirements for solicitors, particularly those
soliciting for political or religious reasons, have been the subject
of a long string of court cases. However, the courts have generally
recognized that individuals may post "No Soliciting" signs and the
government may enforce the citizen's desire. In a recent case where
Jehovah's Witnesses challenged a registration requirement in the city
of Stratton, Connecticut, saying they derived their authority from
the Scriptures, not the city. However, the court noted:
"A section of the ordinance that petitioners do not challenge
establishes a procedure by which a resident may prohibit
solicitation even by holders of permits. If the resident files a
'No Solicitation Registration Form' with the mayor, and also posts
a 'No Solicitation' sign on his property, no uninvited canvassers
may enter his property... " [Watchtower].
Even government, which has a duty to promote free expression, may
restrict the use of soliciting on government property. In one case,
for example, a school district was allowed to give access to its
internal electronic mail system to the union that was representing
teachers, but was not required to do so to a rival union that was
attempting to gain the right to represent the teachers. The court
held that where property is not a traditional public forum "and the
Government has not dedicated its property to First Amendment
activity, such regulation is examined only for reasonableness"
[Perry].
The courts have consistently held that the state has a compelling
public safety reason for regulating solicitation. In Cantwell v.
Connecticut, the Supreme Court held that "a State may protect its
citizens from fraudulent solicitation by requiring a stranger in the
community, before permitting him publicly to solicit funds for any
purpose, to establish his identity and his authority to act for the
Malamud Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3865 No Soliciting September 2004
cause which he purports to represent" [Cantwell]. And, in Martin v.
City of Struthers, the court noted that "burglars frequently pose as
canvassers, either in order that they may have a pretense to discover
whether a house is empty and hence ripe for burglary, or for the
purpose of spying out the premises in order that they may return
later" [Martin]. The public safety issue applies very much to email,
where viruses can easily be delivered, in contrast to telephone
solicitations where public safety is not nearly as much an issue.
This analysis is U.S.-centric, which is partly due to the background
of the author. However, the concept of prohibiting unwanted
solicitation does carry over to other countries:
o In Hong Kong, offices frequently post "no soliciting" signs.
o In the United Kingdom, where door-to-door peddlers are fairly
common, "no soliciting" signs are also common.
o In Australia, where door-to-door does not appear to be a pressing
social problem, there was legislation passed which outlawed the
practice of placing ads under wipers of parked cars.
o In France, which has a long tradition of door-to-door
solicitation, apartment buildings often use trespass laws to
enforce "no solicitation" policies.
o In the Netherlands, where door-to-door solicitation is not a
pressing issue, there is a practice of depositing free
publications in mailboxes. The postal equivalent of "no spam"
signs are quite prevalent and serve notice that the publications
are not desired.
1.3. No Soliciting and Electronic Mail
Many of the anti-spam proposals that have been advanced have great
merit, however none of them give notice to an SMTP agent in the
process of delivering mail that the receiver does not wish to receive
solicitations. Such a virtual sign would serve two purposes:
o It would allow the receiving system to "serve notice" that a
certain class of electronic mail is not desired.
o If a message is properly identified as belonging to a certain
class and that class of messages is not desired, transfer of the
message can be eliminated. Rather than filtering after delivery,
elimination of the message transfer can save network bandwidth,
disk space, and processing power.
Malamud Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3865 No Soliciting September 2004
This memo details a series of extensions to SMTP that have the
following characteristics:
o A service extension is described that allows a receiving Mail
Transport Agent (MTA) to signal the sending MTA that no soliciting
is in effect.
o A header field for the sender of the message is defined that
allows the sender to flag a message as conforming to a certain
class.
o Trace fields for intermediate MTAs are extended to allow the
intermediate MTA to signal that a message is in a certain class.
Allowing the sender of a message to tag a message as being, for
example, unsolicited commercial email with adult content, allows
"good" spammers to conform to legal content labelling requirements by
governmental authorities, license agreements with service providers,
or conventions imposed by "whitelist" services. For senders of mail
who choose not to abide by these conventions, the intermediate trace
fields defined here allow the destination MTAs to perform appropriate
dispositions on the received message.
This extension provides a simple mean for senders, MTAs, and
receivers to assert keywords. This extension does not deal with any
issues of authentication or consent.
2. The No-Soliciting SMTP Service Extension
Per [RFC2821], a "NO-SOLICITING" SMTP service extension is defined.
The service extension is declared during the initial "EHLO" SMTP
exchange. The extension has one optional parameter, consisting of
zero or more solicitation class keywords. Using the notation as
described in the Augmented BNF [RFC2234], the syntax is:
No-Soliciting-Service = "NO-SOLICITING"
[ SP Solicitation-keywords ]
As will be further described below, the "Solicitation-keywords"
construct is used to indicate which classes of messages are not
desired. A keyword that is presented during the initial "EHLO"
exchange applies to all messages exchanged in this session. As will
also be further described below, additional keywords may be specified
on a per-recipient basis as part of the response to a "RCPT TO"
command.
Malamud Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3865 No Soliciting September 2004
2.1. The EHLO Exchange
Keywords presented during the initial exchange indicate that no
soliciting in the named classes is in effect for all messages
delivered to this system. It is equivalent to the sign on the door
of an office building announcing a company-wide policy. For example:
R: <wait for connection on TCP port 25>
S: <open connection to server>
R: 220 trusted.example.com SMTP service ready
S: EHLO untrusted.example.com
R: 250-trusted.example.com says hello
R: 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES
R: 250-NO-SOLICITING net.example:ADV
R: 250 SIZE 20480000
The "net.example:ADV" parameter to the "NO-SOLICITING" extension is
an example of a solicitation class keyword, the syntax of which is
described in the following section.
Historical Note:
A similar proposal was advanced in 1999 by John Levine and Paul
Hoffman. This proposal used the SMTP greeting banner to specify
that unsolicited bulk email is prohibited on a particular system
through the use of the "NO UCE" keyword [Levine]. As the authors
note, their proposal has the potential of overloading the
semantics of the greeting banner, which may also be used for other
purposes (see, e.g., [Malamud]).
2.2. Solicitation Class Keywords
The "NO-SOLICITING" service extension uses solicitation class
keywords to signify classes of solicitations that are not accepted.
Solicitation class keywords are separated by commas.
There is no default solicitation class keyword for the service. In
other words, the following example is a "no-op":
R : 250-NO-SOLICITING
While the above example is a "no-op" it is useful for an MTA that
wishes to pass along all messages, but would also like to pass along
"SOLICIT=" parameters on a message-by-message basis. The above
example invokes the use of the extension but does not signal any
restrictions by class of message.
Malamud Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 3865 No Soliciting September 2004
The initial set of solicitation class keywords all begin with a
domain name with the labels reversed, followed by a colon. For
example, the domain name "example.com" could be used to form the
beginning of a solicitation class keyword of "com.example:". The
solicitation class keyword is then followed by an arbitrary set of
characters drawn from the following construct:
Solicitation-keywords = word
0*("," word)
; length of this string is limited
; to <= 1000 characters
word = ALPHA 0*(wordchar)
wordchar = ("." / "-" / "_" / ":" / ALPHA / DIGIT)
A solicitation class keyword MUST be less than 1000 characters. Note
however that a set of keywords used in the operations defined in this
document must also be less than 1000 characters. Implementors are
thus advised to keep their solicitation class keywords brief.
Any registrant of a domain name may define a solicitation class
keyword. Discovery of solicitation class keywords is outside the
scope of this document. However, those registrants defining keywords
are advised to place a definition of their solicitation class
keywords on a prominent URL under their control such that search
engines and other discovery mechanisms can find them.
While this document defines solicitation class keywords as beginning
with a reversed domain name followed by a colon (":"), future RFCs
may define additional mechanisms that do not conflict with this
naming scheme.
2.2.1. Note on Choice of Solicitation Class Keywords
This document does not specify which solicitation class keywords
shall or shall not be used on a particular message. The requirement
to use a particular keyword is a policy decision well outside the
scope of this document. It is expected that relevant policy bodies
(e.g., governments, ISPs, developers, or others) will specify
appropriate keywords, the definition of the meaning of those
keywords, and any other policy requirements, such as a requirement to
use or not use this extension in particular circumstances.
During discussions of this proposal, there were several suggestions
to do away with the solicitation class keywords altogether and
replace the mechanism with a simple boolean (e.g., "NO-SOLICITING
YES" or "ADV" or "UBE"). Under a boolean mechanism, this extension
would have to adopt a single definition of what "YES" or other label
Malamud Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 3865 No Soliciting September 2004
means. By using the solicitation class keywords approach, the mail
infrastructure remains a neutral mechanism, allowing different
definitions to co-exist.
2.3. The MAIL FROM Command
"SOLICIT" is defined as a parameter for the "MAIL FROM" command. The
"SOLICIT" parameter is followed by an equal sign and a comma
separated list of solicitation class keywords. The syntax for this
parameter is:
Mail-From-Solicit-Parameter = "SOLICIT"
"=" Solicitation-keywords
; Solicitation-keywords, when used in MAIL FROM command
; MUST be identical to those in the Solicitation: header.
Note that white space is not permitted in this production.
As an informational message, the "550" or "250" replies to the "RCPT
TO" command may also contain the "SOLICIT" parameter. If a message
is being rejected due to a solicitation class keyword match,
implementations SHOULD echo which solicitation classes are in effect.
See Section 2.4 for more on error reporting.
The receiving system may decide on a per-message basis the
appropriate disposition of messages:
R: <wait for connection on TCP port 25>
S: <open connection to server>
R: 220 trusted.example.com SMTP service ready
S: EHLO untrusted.example.com
R: 250-trusted.example.com says hello
R: 250-NO-SOLICITING net.example:ADV
S: MAIL FROM:<save@example.com> SOLICIT=org.example:ADV:ADLT
S: RCPT TO:<coupon_clipper@moonlink.example.com>
R: 250 <coupon_clipper@moonlink.example.com>... Recipient ok
S: RCPT TO:<grumpy_old_boy@example.net>
R: 550 <grumpy_old_boy@example.net> SOLICIT=org.example:ADV:ADLT
In the previous example, the receiving MTA returned a "550" status
code, indicating that one message was being rejected. The
implementation also echoes back the currently set keywords for that
user on the "550" status message. The solicitation class keyword
which is echoed back is "org.example:ADV:ADLT" which illustrates how
this per-recipient solicitation class keyword has supplemented the
base "net.example:ADV" class declared in the "EHLO" exchange.
Malamud Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 3865 No Soliciting September 2004
It is the responsibility of a receiving MTA to maintain a consistent
policy. If the receiving MTA will reject a message because of
solicitation class keywords, the MTA SHOULD declare those keywords
either in the initial "EHLO" exchange or on a per-recipient basis.
Likewise, a receiving MTA SHOULD NOT deliver a message where the
"Solicitation:" matches a solicitation class keyword that was
presented during the initial "EHLO" exchange or on a per-recipient
basis.
Developers should also note that the source of the solicitation class
keywords used in the "MAIL FROM" command MUST be the "Solicitation:"
header described in Section 2.5 and MUST NOT be supplemented by
additional solicitation class keywords derived from the "Received:"
header trace fields which are described in Section 2.6.
2.4. Error Reporting and Enhanced Mail Status Codes
If a session between two MTAs is using both the "NO-SOLICITING"
extension and the Enhanced Mail Status Codes as defined in [RFC3463]
and a message is rejected based on the presence of a "SOLICIT"
parameter, the correct error message to return will usually be
"5.7.1", defined as "the sender is not authorized to send to the
destination... (because) of per-host or per-recipient filtering."
Other codes, including temporary status codes, may be more
appropriate in some circumstances and developers should look to
[RFC3463] on this subject. An example of such a situation might be
the use of quotas or size restrictions on messages by class. An
implementation MAY impose limits such as message size restrictions
based on solicitation classes, and when such limits are exceed they
SHOULD be reported using whatever status code is appropriate for that
limit.
In all cases, an implementation SHOULD include a "Mail-From-Solicit-
Parameter" on a "550" or other reply that rejects message delivery.
The parameter SHOULD includes the solicitation class keyword(s) that
matched. In addition to the solicitation class keyword(s) that
matched, an implementation MAY include additional solicitation class
keywords that are in effect.
2.5. Solicitation Mail Header
Per [RFC2822], a new "Solicitation:" header field is defined which
contains one or more solicitation class keywords.
Solicitation-header = "Solicitation:" 1*SP Solicitation-keywords
Malamud Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 3865 No Soliciting September 2004
An example of this header follows:
To: Coupon Clipper <coupon_clipper@moonlink.example.com>
From: Spam King <save@burntmail.example.com>
Solicitation: net.example:ADV,org.example:ADV:ADLT
Several proposals, particularly legal ones, have suggested requiring
the use of keywords in the "Subject:" header. While embedding
information in the "Subject:" header may provide visual cues to end
users, it does not provide a straightforward set of cues for computer
programs such as mail transfer agents. As with embedding a "no
solicitation" message in a greeting banner, this overloads the
semantics of the "Subject:" header. Of course, there is no reason
why both mechanisms can't be used, and in any case the
"Solicitation:" header could be automatically inserted by the
sender's Mail User Agent (MUA) based on the contents of the subject
line.
2.6. Insertion of Solicitation Keywords in Trace Fields
The "Solicitation:" mail header is only available to the sending
client. RFCs 2821 and 2822 are quite specific that intermediate MTAs
shall not change message headers, with the sole exception of the
"Received:" trace field. Since many current systems use an
intermediate relay to detect unsolicited mail, an addition to the
"Received:" header is described.
[RFC2821] documents the following productions for the "Received:"
header in a mail message:
; From RFC 2821
With = "WITH" FWS Protocol CFWS
Protocol = "ESMTP" / "SMTP" / Attdl-Protocol
Additionally, [RFC2822] defines a comment field as follows:
; From RFC 2822
comment = "(" *([FWS] ccontent) [FWS] ")"
ccontent = ctext / quoted-pair / comment
The "Mail-From-Solicit-Parameter" defined in Section 2.3 above is a
restricted form of ctext, yielding the following production:
With-Solicit = "WITH" FWS Protocol
"(" [FWS] comment [FWS] ")"
comment = "(" *([FWS] ccontent) [FWS] ")"
ccontent = ctext / quoted-pair /
comment / Mail-From-Solicit-Parameter
Malamud Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 3865 No Soliciting September 2004
; The Mail-From-Solicit-Parameter
; is a restricted form of ctext
An example of a Received: header from a conforming MTA is as follows:
Received: by foo-mta.example.com with
ESMTP (SOLICIT=net.example:ADV,org.example:ADV:ADLT) ;
Sat, 9 Aug 2003 16:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
It should be noted that keywords presented in trace fields may not
agree with those found in the "Solicitation:" header and trace fields
may exist even if the header is not present. When determining which
keywords are applicable to a particular exchange of messages,
implementors SHOULD examine any keywords found in the "Solicitation:"
header. Implementors MAY examine other keywords found in the trace
fields.
2.7. Relay of Messages
The "NO-SOLICITING" service extension, if present, applies to all
messages handled by the receiving Message Transfer Agent (MTA),
including those messages intended to be relayed to another system.
Solicitation class keywords supplied by a client on a "SOLICIT"
parameter on a "MAIL FROM" command SHOULD be obtained from the
"Solicitation:" field in the message header. An SMTP client SHOULD,
however, verify that the list of solicitation class keywords obtained
from the "Solicitation:" field uses valid syntax before conveying its
contents. An SMTP server SHOULD set this parameter after detecting
the presence of the "Solicitation:" header field when receiving a
message from a non-conforming MTA.
2.8. No Default Solicitation Class
Implementations of "NO-SOLICITING" service extension SHOULD NOT
enable specific solicitation class keywords as a default in their
software. There are some indications that some policy makers may
view a default filtering in software as a prior restraint on
commercial speech. In other words, because the person installing and
using the software did not make an explicit choice to enable a
certain type of filtering, some might argue that such filtering was
not desired.
Likewise, it is recommended that a system administrator installing
software SHOULD NOT enable additional per-recipient filtering by
default for a user. Again, individual users should specifically
request any additional solicitation class keywords.
Malamud Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 3865 No Soliciting September 2004
The mechanism for an individual user to communicate their desire to
enable certain types of filtering is outside the scope of this
document.
3. Security Considerations
This extension does not provide authentication of senders or other
measures intended to promote security measures during the message
exchange process.
In particular, this document does not address the circumstances under
which a sender of electronic mail should or should not use this
extension and does not address the issues of whether consent to send
mail has been granted.
This might lead to a scenario in which a sender of electronic mail
begins to use this extension well before the majority of end users
have begun to use it. In this scenario, the sender might wish to use
the absence of the extension on the receiving MTA as an implication
of consent to receive mail. Non-use of the "NO-SOLICITING" extension
by a receiving MTA SHALL NOT indicate consent.
4. IANA Considerations
There are three IANA considerations presented in this document:
1. Addition of the "NO-SOLICITING" service extension to the Mail
Parameters registry.
2. Documentation of the use of comments in trace fields.
3. Creation of a "Solicitation:" mail header.
4.1. The Mail Parameters Registry
The IANA Mail Parameters registry documents SMTP service extensions.
The "NO-SOLICITATION" service extension has been added to this
registry as follows.
Keywords Description Reference
------------ ------------------------------ ---------
NO-SOLICITING Notification of no soliciting. RFC3865
The parameters subregistry would need to be modified as follows:
Service Ext EHLO Keyword Parameters Reference
----------- ------------ ----------- ---------
No Soliciting NO-SOLICITING Solicitation-keywords RFC3865
Malamud Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 3865 No Soliciting September 2004
The maximum length of Solicitation-keywords is 1000 characters. The
"SOLICIT=" parameter is defined for use on the MAIL FROM command.
The potential length of the MAIL FROM command is thus increased by
1007 characters.
4.2. Trace Fields
The Mail Parameters registry would need to be modified to note the
use of the comment facility in trace fields to indicate Solicitation
Class Keywords.
4.3. The Solicitation Mail Header
Per [RFC3864], the "Solicitation:" header field is added to the IANA
Permanent Message Header Field Registry. The following is the
registration template:
o Header field name: Solicitation
o Applicable protocol: mail
o Status: standard
o Author/Change controller: IETF
o Specification document(s): RFC3865
o Related information:
5. Author's Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Rebecca Malamud for many discussions
and ideas that led to this proposal and to John C. Klensin and
Marshall T. Rose for their extensive input on how it could be
properly implemented in SMTP. Eric Allman, Harald Alvestrand, Steven
M. Bellovin, Doug Barton, Kent Crispin, Dave Crocker, Ned Freed,
Curtis Generous, Arnt Gulbrandsen, John Levine, Keith Moore, Hector
Santos, Ted Hardie, Paul Vixie, and Pindar Wong kindly provided
reviews of the document and/or suggestions for improvement.
Information about soliciting outside the U.S. was received from Rob
Blokzijl, Jon Crowcroft, Christian Huitema, Geoff Huston, and Pindar
Wong. John Levine pointed out the contrast between this proposal and
"do not spam" lists. As always, all errors and omissions are the
responsibility of the author.
Malamud Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 3865 No Soliciting September 2004
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
[RFC2821] Klensin, J., Ed., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC
2821, April 2001.
[RFC2822] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822,
April 2001.
[RFC3463] Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", RFC
3463, January 2003.
[RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
September 2004.
6.2. Informative References
[Assassin] Mason, J., "Spamassassin - Mail Filter to Identify Spam
Using Text Analysis", Version 2.55, May 2003,
<http://www.mirror.ac.uk/sites/spamassassin.taint.org/
spamassassin.org/doc/spamassassin.html>
[CNET] CNET News.Com, "AOL touts spam-fighting prowess", April
2003, <http://news.com.com/2100-1025-998944.html>.
[Cantwell] U.S. Supreme Court, "Cantwell v. State of Connecticut",
310 U.S. 296 (1940), May 1940,
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/
getcase.pl?court=US&vol=310&invol=296>
[FTC] Federal Trade Commission, "Federal, State, Local Law
Enforcers Target Deceptive Spam and Internet Scams",
November 2002,
<http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/11/nenetforcema.htm>.
[FTC.TSR] Federal Trade Commission, "Telemarketing Sales Rule",
Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 19, January 2003,
<http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/12/tsrfinalrule.pdf>.
Malamud Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 3865 No Soliciting September 2004
[Ferris] Associated Press, "Study: Spam costs businesses $13
billion", January 2003,
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/01/03/
spam.costs.ap/index.html>
[Habeas] Habeas, Inc., "Habeas Compliance Message", 2004,
<http://www.habeas.com/servicesComplianceStds.html>
[crocker-spam-techconsider]
Crocker, D., "Technical Considerations for Spam Control
Mechanisms", Work in Progress, February 2004.
[crouzet-amtp]
Crouzet, B., "Authenticated Mail Transfer Protocol",
Work in Progress, May 2004.
[daboo-sieve-spamtest]
Daboo, C., "SIEVE Spamtest and Virustest Extensions",
Work in Progress, October 2003.
[danisch-dns-rr-smtp]
Danisch, H., "The RMX DNS RR and method for lightweight
SMTP sender authorization", Work in Progress, August
2004.
[Levine] Levine, J. and P. Hoffman, "Anti-UBE and Anti-UCE
Keywords in SMTP Banners", Revision 1.1, March 1999,
<http://www.cauce.org/proposal/smtp-banner-rfc.shtml>.
[Malamud] Malamud, C., "An Internet Prayer Wheel", Mappa.Mundi
Magazine, August 1999,
<http://mappa.mundi.net/cartography/Wheel/>.
[Martin] U.S. Supreme Court, "Martin v. City of Struthers, Ohio",
319 U.S. 141 (1943), May 1943,
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/
getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=141>
[Newbury] The Town of West Newbury, Massachusetts, "Soliciting/
Canvassing By-Law", Chapter 18 Section 10, March 2002,
<http://www.town.west-newbury.ma.us/Public_Documents/
WestNewburyMA_Bylaws/000A1547-70E903AC>
[Perry] U.S. Supreme Court, "Perry Education Association v.
Perry Local Educators' Association", 460 U.S. 37 (1983),
February 1983, <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/
getcase.pl?court=US&vol=460&invol=37>
Malamud Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 3865 No Soliciting September 2004
[RFC2505] Lindberg, G., "Anti-Spam Recommendations for SMTP MTAs",
BCP 30, RFC 2505, February 1999.
[ROKSO] Spamhaus.Org, "Register of Known Spam Operations",
November 2003,
<http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/index.lasso>.
[Schumer] Charles, C., "Schumer, Christian Coalition Team Up to
Crack Down on Email Spam Pornography", June 2003,
<http://
www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/
press_releases/PR01782.html>.
[Watchtower] U.S. Supreme Court, "Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of
New York, Inc., et al. v. Village of Stratton et al.",
122 S.Ct. 2080 (2002), June 2002,
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/
getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-1737>
Malamud Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 3865 No Soliciting September 2004
Appendix A. Collected ABNF Descriptions (Normative)
Solicitation-keywords = word
0*("," word)
; length of this string is limited
; to <= 1000 characters
word = ALPHA 0*(wordchar)
wordchar = ("." / "-" / "_" / ":" / ALPHA / DIGIT)
; used in the initial EHLO exchange
No-Soliciting-Service = "NO-SOLICITING"
[ SP Solicitation-keywords ]
; used on the Solicitation: message header
Solicitation-header = "Solicitation:" 1*SP Solicitation-keywords
; used on the MAIL FROM command and replies,
; and on Received: headers.
Mail-From-Solicit-Parameter =
"SOLICIT" "=" Solicitation-keywords
; Solicitation-keywords, when used in
; the MAIL FROM command MUST be identical
; to those in the Solicitation: header.
; Used on Received: headers
With-Solicit = "WITH" FWS Protocol
"(" [FWS] comment [FWS] ")"
; From RFC 2822
comment = "(" *([FWS] ccontent) [FWS] ")"
ccontent = ctext / quoted-pair /
comment / Mail-From-Solicit-Parameter
; The Mail-From-Solicit-Parameter
; is a restricted form of ctext
; From RFC 2821
With = "WITH" FWS Protocol CFWS
Protocol = "ESMTP" / "SMTP" / Attdl-Protocol
Attdl-Protocol = Atom
Author's Address
Carl Malamud
Memory Palace Press
PO Box 300
Sixes, OR 97476
US
EMail: carl@media.org
Malamud Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 3865 No Soliciting September 2004
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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 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.
Malamud Standards Track [Page 19]