]> xyzzy

Hamburg Germany hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com http://purl.net/xyzzy/

In discussions about the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) users often wanted to add optional properties to their sender policies. The modifier match_subdomains=yes made it into early SPF drafts. This memo proposes a general syntax for a modifier op= for this purpose.

The key words "MAY, "MUST", "MUST NOT", and "NOT RECOMMENDED" in this memo are to be interpreted as described in . One line of syntax uses the ABNF defined in . Readers should be familiar with , , and the SPF terminology in . See for an Internet Security Glossary. Comments and questions should be sent to the SPF-Discuss mailing list .

The SPF community often discussed optional yes, no, or similar modifiers. SPF allows the introduction of new modifiers without a new SPF version under two conditions: All SPF implementations can safely ignore the new modifier. Implementations supporting the new modifier interpret all policies without this modifier like all other conforming implementations. The op modifier is a shorthand for optional properties and "opt-in" procedures. The length of SPF policies is limited. Instead of separate modifiers as in... IN SPF v=spf1 o1=yes p2=no q3=1 ...the op modifier allows the shorter notation... IN SPF v=spf1 op=o1.nop2.q3 ...for hypothetical properties o1, nop2, and q3. Please note that a policy without one of these properties does not implicitly have any "opposite" property. Existing sender policies and implementations may not know these properties. They are also free to ignore known properties intentionally. It is possible to define a hypothetical property p2 as the opposite of nop2, and to specify it explicitly in a sender policy. The definitions could state that p2 and nop2 must not be used together.

The op modifier introduces a dot-separated list of optional properties. New properties can be defined in additional documents in the same way as new SPF modifiers. At most one op modifier is allowed in an SPF sender policy. It is a good idea to specify an op modifier before the first directive. An ABNF specification for options:

options = "op=" name *( "." name )

Property names can be given in any order, it is no syntax error to specify the same property more than once. The term <name> for the names of individual properties is defined in . An initial set of properties is defined below: pra, and auth. In theory a modifier could be defined to have an effect on the evaluation of "included" policies. This is not the case for the predefined (in ) modifiers exp and redirect, and op follows this role model. In theory a modifier could be defined to have an effect on the evaluation of "continuation records" when following a redirect modifier. This is not the case for the predefined exp modifier, and op follows this role model.

The pra property indicates that the sender policy MAY be also evaluated for the "PRA" identity also known as "Purported Responsible Address" and defined in . Please note that many cases exist, where the "PRA" identity differs from the "MAIL FROM" identity, and that classic SPF sender policies are generally not designed to work with the "PRA" identity. Enforced submission rights for Message Submission Agents (MSAs) in do not guarantee a match of any address in the 2822-From header field with the "MAIL FROM" identity, and they also do not guarantee the presence of a matching 2822-Sender header field. For more details about these problems see and compare sections 6.1 and 8.1 in .

The auth property indicates that the domain owner not only authorizes the hosts that "Pass" the sender policy to send mail using the domain in the "MAIL FROM" and "HELO" identities, but that the domain owner also asserts those uses of the domain to be authentic, i.e. not forged. In particular, this means that any authorized hosts that are shared with other domains are guaranteed to prevent cross-user forgery (see , section 10.4). This is often the case for MSAs as defined in , but many MSAs and smart hosts still allow to use any "MAIL FROM" identity after a successful authentication. For details about enforced submission rights see . Example: IN SPF v=spf1 op=auth +a ?include:example.com -all Please note that the auth property has no technical effect. It is arguably better to use a "Neutral" mechanism for any shared smart host, and to use "Pass" only if the MSA enforces submission rights.

Many persons on the SPF-Discuss mailing list contributed to the ideas published in this memo. Special thanks for this and completely different reasons to April Lorenzen, Bruce Lilly, Chris Hayes, Hector Santos, Julian Mehnle, Keith Moore, Meng Weng Wong, Scott Kitterman, Stuart D. Gathman, Wayne Schlitt, and William Leibzon. Bill Fenner's xml2rfc validator and ABNF checker were a great help in the creation of (not only) this memo. The same goes for various great IETF tools written by Henrik Levkowetz.

Please consult the security considerations in and . A sender policy is only a claim by the domain owner, this can be a spammer or an attacker. The SPF specification explains why checking other identities except from the "HELO" and "MAIL FROM" identities against SPF version 1 records is NOT RECOMMENDED without explicit approval of the domain owner. While the pra property offers a way for this explicit approval in the case of a "PRA" identity, it does not solve any of the underlying technical problems with this approach. Receivers should treat all PRA-results with utmost care.

The creation of a IANA registry for additional SPF modifiers not limited to op= and/or for additional properties might be desirable in the future, but at this time it's unnecessary.

&rfc2119; &rfc4408; &rfc4409; &rfcABNF; &rfc2821; &rfc2822; &rfc4407; &rfc4949;

This appendix should not be published in an RFC. For [draft-ellermann-spf-options-00] the last [draft-spf-6-3-options-10] was renamed and submitted as Internet draft (I-D). A note that it should be not implemented before that time was removed - apparently no additional SPF modifiers have been implemented so far. The first revision of the I-D (version 01) got a reference to for the improved auth section. More acronyms are expanded on first usage. Version 02 is a maintenance update removing the [draft-spf-6-3-options] (2004-2006) history. RFC 2828 was replaced by , and RFC 4234 was replaced by . The popular demand for helo and nohelo options over the years was near zero, they are now removed.