Responsible Submitter An SMTP Service Extension IETF 60 San Diego, CA Harry Katz Microsoft Corp. 8/4/2004.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Securing Bruce Maggs. Separate Suites of Protocols Protocols for retrieving POP, IMAP, MAPI (Microsoft Exchange) Protocols for sending
Advertisements

Communication Protocols II Ninth Meeting. TCP/IP family.
Downgrade Design Team Discussion Results IETF 77 DDT.
Internet Safety Microsoft’s Anti-SPAM Strategy and Initiatives Meng-Chow Kang, CISSP, CISA Chief Security & Privacy Advisor Microsoft Asia Pacific Anti-SPAM.
© 2007 Convio, Inc. Implementation of Sender ID Bill Pease, Chief Scientist Convio.
Sender ID Drafts Jim Lyon Microsoft Corporation 4 August 2004.
INTRANET MAIL SERVER (DESIGN OF SMTP and POP3)
SMTP – Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
How does a simple protocol like the protocol SMTP work 1. Open telnet connection Do remote login to the system you want to send to Note: You.
CPSC 441: FTP & SMTP1 Application Layer: FTP & Instructor: Carey Williamson Office: ICT Class.
Chapter 30 Electronic Mail Representation & Transfer
Esimerkki: Sähköposti. Lappeenranta University of Technology / JP, PH, AH Electronic Mail Three major components: user agents mail servers simple mail.
POP Configuration Microsoft Outlook Express 6.x.
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
Overview of Exchange 2013 Architecture Transport components shipping with Exchange 2013 Mail Routing Scenarios Transport High Availability SMTP Client.
Electronic Mail: SMTP, POP, and IMAP
SIMPLE MAIL TRANSFER PROTOCOL SECURITY Guided By Prof : Richard Sinn Bhavesh Jadav Mayur Mulani.
SMTP extension for internationalized address YAO Jiankang 2006 CNNIC.
SMTP, POP3, IMAP.
Mail Services.
Intro to Computer Networks Bob Bradley The University of Tennessee at Martin.
Review: –How do we address “a network end-point”? –What services are provided by the Internet? –What is the network logical topology observed by a network.
Application Layer Protocols Simple Mail Transfer Protocol.
SMTP PROTOCOL CONFIGURATION AND MANAGEMENT Chapter 8.
Sending and Receiving Mails
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP)
©2003 Hathai Tanta-ngai, Tony Abou-Assaleh, Sittichai Jiampojamarn, and Nick Cercone 1 IPSI 2003 Hathai Tanta-ngai, Tony Abou-Assaleh, Sittichai Jiampojamarn,
SMTP – Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
File Transfer Protocol (FTP)
July 27, 2009IETF NEA Meeting1 NEA Working Group IETF 75 Co-chairs: Steve Hanna
1 SMTP - Simple Mail Transfer Protocol –RFC 821 POP - Post Office Protocol –RFC 1939 Also: –RFC 822 Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text.
SIMPLE MAIL TRANSFER PROTOCOL. Introduction Simple Mail Transfer Protocol is the standard protocol on the Internet and part of the TCP/IP protocol.
SIMPLE MAIL TRANSFER PROTOCOL PRADEEP KOLLIPARA SANDEEP PINNAMANENI.
How does a simple protocol like the protocol SMTP work 1. open telnet & do remote login in to the system you want to send to.
SMTP Tapu Ahmed Jeremy Nunn. Basics Responsible for electronic mail delivery. Responsible for electronic mail delivery. Simple ASCII protocol that runs.
Sender policy framework. Note: is a good reference source for SPFhttp://
SMTP - Simple Mail Transfer Protocol RFC 821
Chapter 16: Distributed Applications Business Data Communications, 4e.
CITA 310 Section 6 Providing Services (Textbook Chapter 8)
CS2910 Week 7, Lab Today SMTP lab Tuesday (Either today or yesterday) Extra office hour at 11 am (right after lab) Friday Office hour cancelled SE-2811.
CS440 Computer Networks 1 Neil Tang 12/01/2008.
Slides based on Carey Williamson’s: FTP & SMTP1 File Transfer Protocol (FTP) r FTP client contacts FTP server at port 21, specifying TCP as transport protocol.
SMTP Service Extension for message Media Size declaration (draft-shveidel-mediasize-01.txt) Ari Erev Vladimir Shveidel November 21, 2002 IETF-55 Update.
Discussion of OCP/SMTP profile and some Use cases Presented by Abbie Barbir
26.1 Electronic Mail Sending/Receiving Mail Addresses User Agent MIME Mail Transfer Agent Mail Access Protocols.
ADDRESS INTERNATIONALIZATION ( EAI ) ICANN-55 Mar 06, 2016 TF-AIDN Member 35+ Min : 10- Min ( Q & A )
@Yuan Xue A special acknowledge goes to J.F Kurose and K.W. Ross Some of the slides used in this lecture are adapted from their.
Spring 2006 CPE : Application Layer_ 1 Special Topics in Computer Engineering Application layer: Some of these Slides are Based on Slides.
درس مهندسی اینترنت – مهدی عمادی مهندسی اینترنت برنامه‌نویسی در اینترنت 1 SMTP, FTP.
Mail User Agent Submitted by: Geetha Chittireddy.
sender policy framework
concepts & protocols
Securing Bruce Maggs.
SMTP - Simple Mail Transfer Protocol POP - Post Office Protocol
Sender ID: An Overview for Registrars ICANN Vancouver December 1, 2005
Networking Applications
Securing Bruce Maggs.
SMTP: simple mail transfer protocol
Networking CS 3470, Section 1 Sarah Diesburg
Securing Bruce Maggs.
Chapter 6: Distributed Applications
Social Media And Global Computing Sending
Overview What is Spoofing Types of Spoofing
Networking CS 3470, Section 1 Sarah Diesburg
STIR WG IETF-99 PASSPorT Extension for Resource-Priority Authorization (draft-ietf-stir-rph-00) July, 2017 Ray P. Singh, Martin Dolly, Subir Das, and An.
William Stallings Data and Computer Communications
Ari Erev Vladimir Shveidel November 21, 2002
Securing Bruce Maggs.
Securing Bruce Maggs.
Presentation transcript:

Responsible Submitter An SMTP Service Extension IETF 60 San Diego, CA Harry Katz Microsoft Corp. 8/4/2004

2 Sender ID Overview Merger of elements of Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and Caller ID for 3 Internet Drafts –draft-ietf-marid-core-02 Algorithm for determining the purported responsible address and for evaluating results of spoof test –draft-ietf-marid-protocol-00 The SPF record format and test protocol –draft-ietf-marid-submitter-02 SMTP Service extension for indicating the responsible submitter of an message

3 SUBMITTER Extension to SMTP MAIL command Lets SMTP client declare purported responsible address (PRA) in an SMTP command Lets SMTP server perform spoof checking before message body is sent across the Internet Must match the PRA as derived from RFC2822 message headers

4 S: 220 alumni.almamater.edu ESMTP server ready C: EHLO example.com S: 250-alumni.almamater.edu S: 250-DSN S: 250-AUTH S: 250-SUBMITTER S: 250 SIZE C: MAIL FROM: S: 250 sender ok C: RCPT TO: S: 250 recipient ok C: DATA S: 354 okay, send message C: From: C: (message body goes here) C:. S: 250 message accepted C: QUIT S: 221 goodbye Example: Mail Submission SUBMITTER extension advertised in EHLO response SUBMITTER parameter added to MAIL command

5 Example: Mailing List S: 220 example.com ESMTP server ready C: EHLO listexample.com S: 250-example.com S: 250-SUBMITTER S: 250 SIZE C: MAIL FROM: S: 250 sender ok C: RCPT TO: S: 250 recipient ok C: DATA S: 354 okay, send message C: Received By:... C: From: C: Sender: C: To: C: (message body goes here) C:. S: 250 message accepted C: QUIT S: 221 goodbye SUBMITTER extension advertised in EHLO response SUBMITTER parameter added to MAIL command Sender header added to message

6 Example: Mobile User SUBMITTER extension advertised in EHLO response SUBMITTER parameter added to MAIL command Sender header added to message S: 220 alumni.almamater.edu ESMTP server ready C: EHLO consolidatedmessenger.net S: 250-alumni.almamater.edu S: 250-DSN S: 250-AUTH S: 250-SUBMITTER S: 250 SIZE C: MAIL FROM: S: 250 sender ok C: RCPT TO: S: 250 recipient ok C: DATA S: 354 okay, send message C: Sender: C: Received By:... C: (message body goes here) C:. S: 250 message accepted C: QUIT S: 221 goodbye

7 Changes in -02 Version Section 4.1 –Strengthened conformance requirements; SUBMITTER now mandatory when MAIL FROM differs from PRA and recommended when MAIL FROM is identical to PRA. –Removed wording about making use of SUBMITTER extension mandatory at some future time. –Moved the procedural descriptions for initial message submission and subsequent message retransmission to the non-normative Examples section. Section 4.2 –Removed the wording about procedures to be used at some future time when use of the SUBMITTER extension becomes mandatory –Significant rewording to simplify and clarify the verification process and error messages. Section 4.3 –Clarified the wording to include all cases of message transmission to a non- SUBMITTER aware server. Section 5 –Changed example addresses to be compliant with RFC 2606 Section 6 –Rewording and focus on security considerations specific to this proposal