💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc5235.gmi captured on 2022-01-08 at 20:42:16. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Obsoletes:
Keywords: [--------|p], spamtest, spamtestplus, virustest, scores
Network Working Group C. Daboo
Request for Comments: 5235 January 2008
Obsoletes: 3685
Category: Standards Track
Sieve Email Filtering: Spamtest and Virustest Extensions
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
The Sieve email filtering language "spamtest", "spamtestplus", and
"virustest" extensions permit users to use simple, portable commands
for spam and virus tests on email messages. Each extension provides
a new test using matches against numeric "scores". It is the
responsibility of the underlying Sieve implementation to do the
actual checks that result in proper input to the tests.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Overview .......................................2
2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................2
3. Sieve Extensions ................................................3
3.1. General Considerations .....................................3
3.2. Test spamtest ..............................................3
3.2.1. spamtest without :percent Argument ..................4
3.2.2. spamtest with :percent Argument .....................5
3.3. Test virustest .............................................7
4. Security Considerations .........................................9
5. IANA Considerations .............................................9
5.1. spamtest Registration ......................................9
5.2. virustest Registration ....................................10
5.3. spamtestplus Registration .................................10
6. References .....................................................10
6.1. Normative References ......................................10
6.2. Informative References ....................................11
Appendix A. Acknowledgments .......................................12
Appendix B. Important Changes since RFC 3685 ......................12
Daboo Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5235 Sieve: Spamtest and Virustest Extensions January 2008
1. Introduction and Overview
Sieve scripts are frequently being used to do spam and virus
filtering either based on implicit script tests (e.g., tests for
"black-listed" senders directly encoded in the Sieve script), or via
testing messages modified by some external spam or virus checker that
handled the message prior to Sieve. The use of third-party spam and
virus checker tools poses a problem since each tool has its own way
of indicating the result of its checks. These usually take the form
of a header added to the message, the content of which indicates the
status using some syntax defined by the particular tool. Each user
has to then create their own Sieve scripts to match the contents of
these headers to do filtering. This requires the script to stay in
synchronization with the third-party tool as it gets updated or
perhaps replaced with another. Thus, scripts become tied to specific
environments and lose portability.
The purpose of this document is to introduce two Sieve tests that can
be used to implement "generic" tests for spam and viruses in messages
processed via Sieve scripts. The spam and virus checks themselves
are handled by the underlying Sieve implementation in whatever manner
is appropriate, so that the Sieve spam and virus test commands can be
used in a portable way.
In order to do numeric comparisons against the returned strings,
server implementations MUST also support the Sieve relational
[RFC5231] extension, in addition to the extensions described here.
All examples below assume the relational extension is present.
2. Conventions Used in This Document
Conventions for notations are as in [RFC5228] Section 1.1.
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 [RFC2119].
The term "spam" is used in this document to refer to unsolicited or
unwanted email messages. This document does not attempt to define
what exactly constitutes spam, or how it should be identified, or
what actions should be taken when detected.
The term "virus" is used in this document to refer to any type of
message whose content can cause malicious damage. This document does
not attempt to define what exactly constitutes a virus, or how it
should be identified, or what actions should be taken when detected.
Daboo Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5235 Sieve: Spamtest and Virustest Extensions January 2008
3. Sieve Extensions
3.1. General Considerations
The "spamtest" and "virustest" tests described below evaluate the
results of implementation-specific spam and virus checks in a
portable way. The implementation may, for example, check for third-
party spam tool headers and determine how those map into the way the
test commands are used. To do this, the underlying Sieve
implementation provides a normalized result string as one of the
inputs to each test command. The normalized result string is
considered to be the value on the left-hand side of the test, and the
comparison values given in the test command are considered to be on
the right-hand side.
The normalized result starts with a digit string, with its numeric
value within the range of values used by the specific test,
indicating the severity of spam or viruses in a message or whether
any tests were done at all. This may optionally be followed by a
space (%x20) character and arbitrary text, or in one specific case a
single keyword is returned. The numeric value can be compared to
specific values using the Sieve relational [RFC5231] extension in
conjunction with the "i;ascii-numeric" comparator [RFC4790], which
will test for the presence of a numeric value at the start of the
string, ignoring any additional text in the string. The optional
text can be used to carry implementation-specific details about the
tests and descriptive comments about the result. Tests can be done
using standard string comparators against this text if it helps to
refine behavior; however, this will break portability of the script
as the text will likely be specific to a particular implementation.
In addition, the Sieve relational [RFC5231] ":count" match type can
be used to determine if the underlying implementation actually did a
test. If the underlying spam or virus test was done, the ":count" of
the normalized result will return the numeric value "1", whilst if
the test was not done, or the Sieve implementation could not
determine if a test was done or not done, the ":count" value will be
"0" (zero).
3.2. Test spamtest
Usage: spamtest [":percent"] [COMPARATOR] [MATCH-TYPE]
<value: string>
Sieve implementations that implement the "spamtest" test use an
identifier of either "spamtest" or "spamtestplus" for use with the
capability mechanism.
Daboo Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5235 Sieve: Spamtest and Virustest Extensions January 2008
If the ":percent" argument is not used with any spamtest test, then
one or both of "spamtest" or "spamtestplus" capability identifiers
MUST be present.
If the ":percent" argument is used with any spamtest test, then the
"spamtestplus" capability identifier MUST be present. Sieve
implementations MUST return an error if the ":percent" argument is
used and "spamtestplus" is not specified.
In the interests of brevity and clarity, scripts SHOULD NOT specify
both "spamtestplus" and "spamtest" capability identifiers together.
The "spamtest" test evaluates to true if the normalized spamtest
result matches the value. The type of match is specified by the
optional match argument, which defaults to ":is" if not specified.
3.2.1. spamtest without :percent Argument
When the ":percent" argument is not present in the "spamtest" test,
the normalized result string provided for the left-hand side of the
test starts with a numeric value in the range "0" (zero) through
"10", with meanings summarized below:
+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| spamtest | interpretation |
| value | |
+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| 0 | message was not tested for spam, or Sieve could not |
| | determine whether any test was done |
| | |
| 1 | message was tested and is clear of spam |
| | |
| 2 - 9 | message was tested and may contain spam; a higher |
| | number indicates a greater likelihood of spam |
| | |
| 10 | message was tested and definitely contains spam |
+----------+--------------------------------------------------------+
The underlying Sieve implementation will map whatever spam check is
done into this numeric range, as appropriate.
Examples:
require ["spamtest", "fileinto", "relational", "comparator-
i;ascii-numeric"];
Daboo Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5235 Sieve: Spamtest and Virustest Extensions January 2008
if spamtest :value "eq" :comparator "i;ascii-numeric" "0"
{
fileinto "INBOX.unclassified";
}
elsif spamtest :value "ge" :comparator "i;ascii-numeric" "3"
{
fileinto "INBOX.spam-trap";
}
In this example, any message that has not passed through a spam check
tool will be filed into the mailbox "INBOX.unclassified". Any
message with a normalized result value greater than or equal to "3"
is filed into a mailbox called "INBOX.spam-trap" in the user's
mailstore.
3.2.2. spamtest with :percent Argument
When the ":percent" argument is present in the "spamtest" test, the
normalized result string provided for the left-hand side of the test
starts with a numeric value in the range "0" (zero) through "100",
with meanings summarized below:
+----------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| spamtest | interpretation |
| value | |
+----------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| 0 | message was tested and is clear of spam, or was not |
| | tested for spam, or Sieve could not determine whether |
| | any test was done |
| | |
| 1 - 99 | message was tested and may contain spam; a higher |
| | percentage indicates a greater likelihood of spam |
| | |
| 100 | message was tested and definitely contains spam |
+----------+-------------------------------------------------------+
The underlying Sieve implementation will map whatever spam check is
done into the numeric range, as appropriate.
To determine whether or not the message was tested for spam, two
options can be used:
a. a test with or without the ":percent" argument and ":count" match
type, testing for the value "0" as described in Section 3.1.
b. a test without the ":percent" argument using the ":value" match
type, testing for the normalized result value "0" as described in
Section 3.2.1.
Daboo Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5235 Sieve: Spamtest and Virustest Extensions January 2008
Examples:
require ["spamtestplus", "fileinto", "relational",
"comparator-i;ascii-numeric"];
if spamtest :value "eq"
:comparator "i;ascii-numeric" "0"
{
fileinto "INBOX.unclassified";
}
elsif spamtest :percent :value "eq"
:comparator "i;ascii-numeric" "0"
{
fileinto "INBOX.not-spam";
}
elsif spamtest :percent :value "lt"
:comparator "i;ascii-numeric" "37"
{
fileinto "INBOX.spam-trap";
}
else
{
discard;
}
In this example, any message that has not passed through a spam check
tool will be filed into the mailbox "INBOX.unclassified". Any
message that is classified as definitely not containing spam
(normalized result value "0") will be filed into the mailbox
"INBOX.not-spam". Any message with a normalized result value less
than "37" is filed into a mailbox called "INBOX.spam-trap" in the
user's mailstore. Any other normalized result value will result in
the message being discarded.
Alternatively, the Sieve relational [RFC5231] ":count" match type can
be used:
Examples:
if spamtest :percent :count "eq"
:comparator "i;ascii-numeric" "0"
{
fileinto "INBOX.unclassified";
}
Daboo Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5235 Sieve: Spamtest and Virustest Extensions January 2008
elsif spamtest :percent :value "eq"
:comparator "i;ascii-numeric" "0"
{
fileinto "INBOX.not-spam";
}
elsif spamtest :percent :value "lt"
:comparator "i;ascii-numeric" "37"
{
fileinto "INBOX.spam-trap";
}
else
{
discard;
}
This example will result in exactly the same behavior as the previous
one.
3.3. Test virustest
Usage: virustest [COMPARATOR] [MATCH-TYPE]
<value: string>
Sieve implementations that implement the "virustest" test have an
identifier of "virustest" for use with the capability mechanism.
The "virustest" test evaluates to true if the normalized result
string matches the value. The type of match is specified by the
optional match argument, which defaults to ":is" if not specified.
The normalized result string provided for the left side of the test
starts with a numeric value in the range "0" (zero) through "5", with
meanings summarized below:
Daboo Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 5235 Sieve: Spamtest and Virustest Extensions January 2008
+-----------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| virustest | interpretation |
| value | |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| 0 | message was not tested for viruses, or Sieve could |
| | not determine whether any test was done |
| | |
| 1 | message was tested and contains no known viruses |
| | |
| 2 | message was tested and contained a known virus that |
| | was replaced with harmless content |
| | |
| 3 | message was tested and contained a known virus that |
| | was "cured" such that it is now harmless |
| | |
| 4 | message was tested and possibly contains a known |
| | virus |
| | |
| 5 | message was tested and definitely contains a known |
| | virus |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------------------+
The underlying Sieve implementation will map whatever virus checks
are done into this numeric range, as appropriate. If the message has
not been categorized by any virus checking tools, then the virustest
result is "0".
Example:
require ["virustest", "fileinto", "relational", "comparator-
i;ascii-numeric"];
if virustest :value "eq" :comparator "i;ascii-numeric" "0"
{
fileinto "INBOX.unclassified";
}
if virustest :value "eq" :comparator "i;ascii-numeric" "4"
{
fileinto "INBOX.quarantine";
}
elsif virustest :value "eq" :comparator "i;ascii-numeric" "5"
{
discard;
}
In this example, any message that has not passed through a virus
check tool will be filed into the mailbox "INBOX.unclassified". Any
message with a normalized result value equal to "4" is filed into a
Daboo Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 5235 Sieve: Spamtest and Virustest Extensions January 2008
mailbox called "INBOX.quarantine" in the user's mailstore. Any
message with a normalized result value equal to "5" is discarded
(removed) and not delivered to the user's mailstore.
4. Security Considerations
Sieve implementations SHOULD ensure that "spamtest" and "virustest"
tests only report spam and virus test results for messages that
actually have gone through a legitimate spam or virus check process.
In particular, if such checks rely on the addition and subsequent
checking of private header fields, it is the responsibility of the
implementation to ensure that such headers cannot be spoofed by the
sender or intermediary and thereby prevent the implementation from
being tricked into returning the wrong result for the test.
Server administrators must ensure that the virus checking tools are
kept up to date, to provide reasonable protection for users using the
"virustest" test. Users should be made aware of the fact that the
"virustest" test does not provide a 100% reliable way to remove all
viruses, and they should continue to exercise caution when dealing
with messages of unknown content and origin.
Beyond that, the "spamtest" and "virustest" extensions do not raise
any security considerations that are not present in the base
[RFC5228] protocol, and these issues are discussed in [RFC5228].
5. IANA Considerations
The following templates specify the IANA registration of the Sieve
extensions specified in this document. The registrations for
"spamtest" and "virustest" replace those from [RFC3685]:
5.1. spamtest Registration
To: iana@iana.org
Subject: Registration of new Sieve extension
Capability name: spamtest
Description: Provides a test to check for varying likelihood of
an email message being spam.
RFC number: RFC 5235
Contact address: The Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>
This information has been added to the list of Sieve extensions given
on http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions.
Daboo Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 5235 Sieve: Spamtest and Virustest Extensions January 2008
5.2. virustest Registration
To: iana@iana.org
Subject: Registration of new Sieve extension
Capability name: virustest
Description: Provides a test to check for varying likelihood of
there being malicious content in an email message.
RFC number: RFC 5235
Contact address: The Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>
This information has been added to the list of Sieve extensions given
on http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions.
5.3. spamtestplus Registration
To: iana@iana.org
Subject: Registration of new Sieve extension
Capability name: spamtestplus
Description: Provides a test to check for varying likelihood of
an email message being spam, possibly using a
percentage range.
RFC number: RFC 5235
Contact address: The Sieve discussion list <ietf-mta-filters@imc.org>
This information has been added to the list of Sieve extensions given
on http://www.iana.org/assignments/sieve-extensions.
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.
[RFC4790] Newman, C., Duerst, M., and A. Gulbrandsen, "Internet
Application Protocol Collation Registry", RFC 4790, March
2007.
[RFC5228] Guenther, P., Ed., and T. Showalter, Ed., "Sieve: An Email
Filtering Language", RFC 5228, January 2008.
[RFC5231] Segmuller, W. and B. Leiba, "Sieve Email Filtering:
Relational Extension", RFC 5231, January 2008.
Daboo Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 5235 Sieve: Spamtest and Virustest Extensions January 2008
6.2. Informative References
[RFC3685] Daboo, C., "SIEVE Email Filtering: Spamtest and VirusTest
Extensions", RFC 3685, February 2004.
Daboo Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 5235 Sieve: Spamtest and Virustest Extensions January 2008
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Mark E. Mallett, Tony Hansen, Jutta Degener, Ned Freed,
Ashish Gawarikar, Alexey Melnikov, Nigel Swinson, and Aaron Stone for
comments and corrections.
Appendix B. Important Changes since RFC 3685
Listed below are some of the major changes from the previous
specification [RFC3685], which this one supersedes.
1. A ":percent" argument has been added to the "spamtest" test adding
a new 0-100 numerical range for test results.
2. A "spamtestplus" requires item has been added to indicate the
presence of this extension in scripts.
3. The "count" match type from [RFC5231] can now be used to determine
whether or not a message was tested.
4. Clarified that "test not done" also means "Sieve system could not
determine if a test was done".
Author's Address
Cyrus Daboo
EMail: cyrus@daboo.name
Daboo Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 5235 Sieve: Spamtest and Virustest Extensions January 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.
Daboo Standards Track [Page 13]