Network Working Group K. Fujiwara, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5504 Y. Yoneya, Ed.
Category: Experimental JPRS
March 2009
Downgrading Mechanism for Email Address Internationalization
Status of This Memo
This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
Traditional mail systems handle only ASCII characters in SMTP
envelope and mail header fields. The Email Address
Internationalization (UTF8SMTP) extension allows UTF-8 characters in
SMTP envelope and mail header fields. To avoid rejecting
internationalized email messages when a server in the delivery path
does not support the UTF8SMTP extension, some sort of converting
mechanism is required. This document describes a downgrading
mechanism for Email Address Internationalization. Note that this is
a way to downgrade, not tunnel. There is no associated up-conversion
mechanism, although internationalized email clients might use
original internationalized addresses or other data when displaying or
replying to downgraded messages.
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 1]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Terminology .....................................................4
3. New Header Fields Definition ....................................5
3.1. Envelope Information Preservation Header Fields ............5
3.2. Address Header Fields' Preservation Header Fields ..........6
3.3. Unknown Header Fields' Preservation Header Fields ..........6
4. SMTP Downgrading ................................................7
4.1. Path Element Downgrading ...................................7
4.2. ORCPT downgrading ..........................................8
5. Email Header Fields Downgrading .................................8
5.1. Downgrading Method for Each ABNF Element ...................8
5.1.1. RECEIVED Downgrading ................................9
5.1.2. UNSTRUCTURED Downgrading ............................9
5.1.3. WORD Downgrading ....................................9
5.1.4. COMMENT Downgrading .................................9
5.1.5. MIME-VALUE Downgrading ..............................9
5.1.6. DISPLAY-NAME Downgrading ............................9
5.1.7. MAILBOX Downgrading .................................9
5.1.8. ENCAPSULATION Downgrading ..........................10
5.1.9. TYPED-ADDRESS Downgrading ..........................10
5.2. Downgrading Method for Each Header Field ..................10
5.2.1. Address Header Fields That Contain s ......10
5.2.2. Address Header Fields with Typed Addresses .........11
5.2.3. Downgrading Non-ASCII in Comments ..................11
5.2.4. Received Header Field ..............................11
5.2.5. MIME Content Header Fields .........................12
5.2.6. Non-ASCII in ........................12
5.2.7. Non-ASCII in ..............................12
5.2.8. Other Header Fields ................................12
6. MIME Body-Part Header Field Downgrading ........................12
7. Security Considerations ........................................13
8. Implementation Notes ...........................................14
8.1. RFC 2047 Encoding .........................................14
8.2. Trivial Downgrading .......................................15
8.3. 7bit Transport Consideration ..............................15
9. IANA Considerations ............................................16
10. Acknowledgements ..............................................18
11. References ....................................................18
11.1. Normative References .....................................18
11.2. Informative References ...................................19
Appendix A. Examples .............................................20
A.1. Downgrading Example 1 .....................................20
A.2. Downgrading Example 2 .....................................22
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 2]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
1. Introduction
Traditional mail systems, which are defined by [RFC5321] and
[RFC5322], allow ASCII characters in SMTP envelope and mail header
field values. The UTF8SMTP extension ([RFC4952], [RFC5335], and
[RFC5336]) allows UTF-8 characters in SMTP envelope and mail header
field values.
If an envelope address or header field contains non-ASCII characters,
the message cannot be delivered unless every system in the delivery
path supports UTF8SMTP. This document describes a downgrading
mechanism to avoid rejection of such messages when a server that does
not support the UTF8SMTP extension is encountered. This downgrading
mechanism converts envelope and mail header fields to an all-ASCII
representation.
[RFC5335] allows UTF-8 characters to be used in mail header fields
and MIME header fields. The downgrading mechanism specified here
converts mail header fields and MIME header fields to ASCII.
This document does not change any protocols except by defining new
header fields. It describes the conversion method from the
internationalized email envelopes/messages that are defined in
[RFC4952], [RFC5335], and [RFC5336] to the traditional email
envelopes/messages defined in [RFC5321] and [RFC5322].
Section 3.2 of [RFC5336] defines when downgrading occurs. If the
SMTP client has a UTF8SMTP envelope or an internationalized message
and the SMTP server doesn't support the UTF8SMTP extension, then the
SMTP client MUST NOT send a UTF8SMTP envelope or an internationalized
message to the SMTP server. The section lists 4 choices in this
case. The fourth choice is downgrading, as described here.
Downgrading may be implemented in Mail User Agents (MUAs), Mail
Submission Agents (MSAs), and Mail Transport Agents (MTAs) that act
as SMTP clients. It may also be implemented in Message Delivery
Agents (MDAs), Post Office Protocol (POP) servers, and IMAP servers
that store or offer UTF8SMTP envelopes or internationalized messages
to non-UTF8SMTP-compliant systems, which include message stores.
This document tries to define the downgrading process clearly and it
preserves the original internationalized email information as much as
possible.
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 3]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
Downgrading in UTF8SMTP consists of the following four parts:
o New header field definitions
o SMTP downgrading
o Email header field downgrading
o MIME header field downgrading
In Section 3 of this document, many header fields starting with
"Downgraded-" are introduced. They preserve the original envelope
information and the original header fields.
SMTP downgrading is described in Section 4. It generates ASCII-only
envelope information from a UTF8SMTP envelope.
Email header field downgrading is described in Section 5. It
generates ASCII-only header fields.
MIME header fields are expanded in [RFC5335]. MIME header field
downgrading is described in Section 6. It generates ASCII-only MIME
header fields.
Displaying downgraded messages that originally contained
internationalized email addresses or internationalized header fields
is described in an another document ([DISPLAY]).
2. 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
All specialized terms used in this specification are defined in the
Email Address Internationalization (EAI) overview [RFC4952], in the
mail specifications [RFC5321] [RFC5322], or in the MIME documents
[RFC2045] [RFC2047] [RFC2183] [RFC2231]. The terms "ASCII address",
"internationalized email address", "non-ASCII address", "i18mail
address", "UTF8SMTP", "message", and "mailing list" are used with the
definitions from [RFC4952].
This document depends on [RFC5335], [RFC5336], and [RFC5337]. Key
words used in those documents are used in this document, too.
The term "non-ASCII" refers to a UTF-8 string that contains at least
one non-ASCII character.
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 4]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
A "UTF8SMTP envelope" has email originator/recipient addresses
expanded by [RFC5336] and [RFC5337].
A "UTF8SMTP message" is an email message expanded by [RFC5335].
3. New Header Fields Definition
New header fields starting with "Downgraded-" are defined here to
preserve those original envelope and mail header field values that
contain UTF-8 characters. During downgrading, one new "Downgraded-"
header field is added for each original envelope or mail header field
that cannot be passed as-is to a server that does not support
UTF8SMTP. The original envelope or mail header field is removed or
rewritten. Only those envelope and mail header fields that contain
non-ASCII characters are affected. The result of this process is a
message that is compliant with existing email specifications
[RFC5321] and [RFC5322]. The original internationalized information
can be retrieved by examining the "Downgraded-" header fields that
were added.
3.1. Envelope Information Preservation Header Fields
SMTP envelope downgraded information
consists of the original non-ASCII address and the downgraded all-
ASCII address. The ABNF [RFC5234] syntax is as follows:
downgraded-envelope-addr = [FWS] "<" [ A-d-l ":" ] uMailbox
FWS "<" Mailbox ">" ">" [CFWS]
is defined in [RFC5336]; and are defined
in Section 4.1.2 of [RFC5321].
Two header fields, "Downgraded-Mail-From:" and "Downgraded-Rcpt-To:",
are defined to preserve SMTP envelope downgraded information. The
header field syntax is specified as follows:
fields =/ downgradedmailfrom / downgradedrcptto
downgradedmailfrom = "Downgraded-Mail-From:" unstructured CRLF
downgradedrcptto = "Downgraded-Rcpt-To:" unstructured CRLF
The unstructured content is downgraded-envelope-addr and treated as
if it were unstructured, with [RFC2047] encoding (and charset UTF-8)
as needed.
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 5]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
3.2. Address Header Fields' Preservation Header Fields
The address header fields' preservation header fields are defined to
preserve the original header field. Their value field holds the
original header field value. The header field syntax is specified as
follows:
fields =/ known-downgraded-headers ":"
unstructured CRLF
known-downgraded-headers = "Downgraded-" original-headers
original-headers = "From" / "Sender" /
"To" / "Cc" / "Bcc" /
"Reply-To" /
"Resent-From" / "Resent-Sender" /
"Resent-To" / "Resent-Cc" /
"Resent-Bcc" / "Resent-Reply-To" /
"Return-Path" /
"Disposition-Notification-To"
To preserve a header field in a "Downgraded-" header field:
1. Generate a new "Downgraded-" header field whose value is the
original header field value.
2. Treat the generated header field content as if it were
unstructured, and then apply [RFC2047] encoding with charset
UTF-8 as necessary so that the result is ASCII.
3.3. Unknown Header Fields' Preservation Header Fields
The unknown header fields' preservation header fields are defined to
encapsulate those original header fields that contain non-ASCII
characters and are not otherwise provided for in this specification.
The encapsulation header field name is the concatenation of
"Downgraded-" and the original name. The value field holds the
original header field value.
The header field syntax is specified as follows:
fields =/ unknown-downgraded-headers ":" unstructured CRLF
unknown-downgraded-headers = "Downgraded-" original-header-field-name
original-header-field-name = field-name
field-name = 1*ftext
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 6]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
ftext = %d33-57 / ; Any character except
%d59-126 ; controls, SP, and ":".
To encapsulate a header field in a "Downgraded-" header field:
1. Generate a new "Downgraded-" header field whose value is the
original header field value.
2. Treat the generated header field content as if it were
unstructured, and then apply [RFC2047] encoding with charset
UTF-8 as necessary so the result is ASCII.
3. Remove the original header field.
4. SMTP Downgrading
The targets of downgrading elements in an SMTP envelope are below:
o of MAIL FROM command
o of RCPT TO command
o ORCPT parameter of RCPT TO command
and are described in [RFC5321] and
[RFC5336]. The ORCPT parameter is described in [RFC3461] and
[RFC5337].
4.1. Path Element Downgrading
Downgrading the of MAIL FROM and RCPT TO commands uses the
ALT-ADDRESS parameter defined in [RFC5336]. An SMTP command is
downgradable if the contains a non-ASCII address and the
command has an ALT-ADDRESS parameter that specifies an ASCII address.
Since only non-ASCII addresses are downgradable, specifying an ALT-
ADDRESS value for an all-ASCII address is invalid for use with this
specification, and no interpretation is assigned to it. This
restriction allows for future extension of the specification even
though no such extensions are currently anticipated.
Note that even if no downgrading is performed on the envelope,
message header fields and message body MIME header fields that
contain non-ASCII characters MUST be downgraded. This is described
in Sections 5 and 6.
When downgrading, replace each that contains a non-ASCII mail
address with its specified alternative ASCII address, and preserve
the original information using "Downgraded-Mail-From" and
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 7]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
"Downgraded-Rcpt-To" header fields as defined in Section 3. Before
replacing, decode the ALT-ADDRESS parameter value because it is
encoded as xtext [RFC3461].
To avoid disclosing recipient addresses, the downgrading process MUST
NOT add the "Downgraded-Rcpt-To:" header field if the SMTP
downgrading targets multiple recipients. See Section 7 for more
details.
As a result of the recipient address downgrading, the domain part of
the recipient address prior to downgrading might be different from
the domain part of the new recipient address. If the result of
address resolution for the domain part of the new recipient address
contains the server at the connection destination of the SMTP session
for the recipient address prior to downgrading, the SMTP connection
is valid for the new recipient address. Otherwise, the downgrading
process MUST NOT send the downgraded message to the new recipient
address via the connection and MUST try to send the downgraded
message to the new recipient address.
4.2. ORCPT downgrading
The "RCPT TO" command can have an ORCPT parameter if the Delivery
Status Notification (DSN) extension [RFC3461] is supported. If the
ORCPT parameter contains a "utf-8" type address and the address
contains raw non-ASCII characters, the address MUST be converted to
utf-8-addr-xtext form. Those forms are described in [RFC5337] and
clarified by successor documents such as [DSNBIS].
Before converting to utf-8-addr-xtext form, remove xtext encoding.
5. Email Header Fields Downgrading
This section defines the conversion method to ASCII for each header
field that may contain non-ASCII characters.
[RFC5335] expands "Received:" header fields; [RFC5322] describes ABNF
elements , , , ; [RFC2045]
describes ABNF element .
5.1. Downgrading Method for Each ABNF Element
Header field downgrading is defined below for each ABNF element.
Downgrading an unknown header field is also defined as ENCAPSULATION
downgrading. Converting the header field terminates when no non-
ASCII characters remain in the header field.
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 8]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
5.1.1. RECEIVED Downgrading
If the header field name is "Received:" and the FOR clause contains a
non-ASCII address, remove the FOR clause from the header field.
Other parts (not counting s) should not contain non-ASCII
values.
5.1.2. UNSTRUCTURED Downgrading
If the header field has an field that contains non-
ASCII characters, apply [RFC2047] encoding with charset UTF-8.
5.1.3. WORD Downgrading
If the header field has any fields that contain non-ASCII
characters, apply [RFC2047] encoding with charset UTF-8.
5.1.4. COMMENT Downgrading
If the header field has any fields that contain non-ASCII
characters, apply [RFC2047] encoding with charset UTF-8.
5.1.5. MIME-VALUE Downgrading
If the header field has any elements defined by [RFC2045] and
the elements contain non-ASCII characters, encode the
elements according to [RFC2231] with charset UTF-8 and leave the
language information empty. If the element is and it contains outside the DQUOTE, remove the
before this conversion.
5.1.6. DISPLAY-NAME Downgrading
If the header field has any ( or ) elements
and they have elements that contain non-ASCII
characters, encode the elements according to [RFC2047]
with charset UTF-8. DISPLAY-NAME downgrading is the same algorithm
as WORD downgrading.
5.1.7. MAILBOX Downgrading
The elements have no equivalent format for non-ASCII
addresses. If the header field has any elements that
contain non-ASCII characters, preserve the header field in the
corresponding "Downgraded-" header field, which is defined in
Section 3.2, and rewrite each element to ASCII-only format.
The element that contains non-ASCII characters is one of
three formats.
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 9]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
o [ Display-name ] "<" Utf8-addr-spec 1*FCS "<" Addr-spec ">>"
Rewrite it as:
[ Display-name ] "<" Addr-spec ">"
o [ Display-name ] "<" Utf8-addr-spec ">"
o Utf8-addr-spec
Rewrite both as:
[ Display-name ] "Internationalized Address " Encoded-word
" Removed:;"
where the is the original
encoded according to [RFC2047].
5.1.8. ENCAPSULATION Downgrading
If the header field contains non-ASCII characters and is such that no
rule is given above, encapsulate it in a "Downgraded-" header field
as described in Section 3.3 as a last resort.
Applying this procedure to "Received:" header field is prohibited.
5.1.9. TYPED-ADDRESS Downgrading
If the header field contains and the contains raw non-ASCII characters, it is in utf-8-address form.
Convert it to utf-8-addr-xtext form as described in Section 4.2.
COMMENT downgrading is also performed in this case. If the address
type is unrecognized and the header field contains non-ASCII
characters, then fall back to using ENCAPSULATION downgrading on the
entire header field.
5.2. Downgrading Method for Each Header Field
Header fields are listed in [RFC4021]. This section describes the
downgrading method for each header field.
If the whole mail header field does not contain non-ASCII characters,
email header field downgrading is not required. Each header field's
downgrading method is described below.
5.2.1. Address Header Fields That Contain s
From:
Sender:
To:
Cc:
Bcc:
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 10]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
Reply-To:
Resent-From:
Resent-Sender:
Resent-To:
Resent-Cc:
Resent-Bcc:
Resent-Reply-To:
Return-Path:
Disposition-Notification-To:
If the header field contains elements that contain non-
ASCII addresses, preserve the header field in a "Downgraded-" header
field before the conversion. Then perform COMMENT downgrading,
DISPLAY-NAME downgrading, and MAILBOX downgrading.
5.2.2. Address Header Fields with Typed Addresses
Original-Recipient:
Final-Recipient:
If the header field contains non-ASCII characters, perform TYPED-
ADDRESS downgrading.
5.2.3. Downgrading Non-ASCII in Comments
Date:
Message-ID:
Resent-Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
References:
Resent-Date:
Resent-Message-ID:
MIME-Version:
Content-ID:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
Content-Language:
Accept-Language:
Auto-Submitted:
These header fields do not contain non-ASCII characters except in
comments. If the header field contains UTF-8 characters in comments,
perform COMMENT downgrading.
5.2.4. Received Header Field
Received:
Perform COMMENT downgrading and RECEIVED downgrading.
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 11]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
5.2.5. MIME Content Header Fields
Content-Type:
Content-Disposition:
Perform MIME-VALUE downgrading and COMMENT downgrading.
5.2.6. Non-ASCII in
Subject:
Comments:
Content-Description:
Perform UNSTRUCTURED downgrading.
5.2.7. Non-ASCII in
Keywords:
Perform WORD downgrading.
5.2.8. Other Header Fields
For all other header fields that contain non-ASCII characters, are
user-defined, and are missing from this document or future defined
header fields, perform ENCAPSULATION downgrading.
If the software understands the header field's structure and a
downgrading algorithm other than ENCAPSULATION is applicable, that
software SHOULD use that algorithm; ENCAPSULATION downgrading is used
as a last resort.
Mailing list header fields (those that start in "List-") are part of
this category.
6. MIME Body-Part Header Field Downgrading
MIME body-part header fields may contain non-ASCII characters
[RFC5335]. This section defines the conversion method to ASCII-only
header fields for each MIME header field that contains non-ASCII
characters. Parse the message body's MIME structure at all levels
and check each MIME header field to see whether it contains non-ASCII
characters. If the header field contains non-ASCII characters in the
header field value, the header field is a target of the MIME body-
part header field's downgrading. Each MIME header field's
downgrading method is described below. COMMENT downgrading, MIME-
VALUE downgrading, and UNSTRUCTURED downgrading are described in
Section 5.
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 12]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
Content-ID:
The "Content-ID:" header field does not contain non-ASCII
characters except in comments. If the header field contains UTF-8
characters in comments, perform COMMENT downgrading.
Content-Type:
Content-Disposition: Perform MIME-VALUE downgrading and COMMENT
downgrading.
Content-Description: Perform UNSTRUCTURED downgrading.
7. Security Considerations
A downgraded message's header fields contain ASCII characters only.
But they still contain MIME-encapsulated header fields that contain
non-ASCII UTF-8 characters. Furthermore, the body part may contain
UTF-8 characters. Implementations parsing Internet messages need to
accept UTF-8 body parts and UTF-8 header fields that are MIME-
encoded. Thus, this document inherits the security considerations of
MIME-encoded header fields ([RFC2047] and [RFC3629]).
Rewriting header fields increases the opportunities for undetected
spoofing by malicious senders. However, rewritten header fields are
preserved into Downgraded-* header fields, and parsing Downgraded-*
header fields enables the detection of spoofing caused by
downgrading.
Addresses that do not appear in the message header fields may appear
in the RCPT commands to an SMTP server for a number of reasons.
Copying information from the envelope into the header fields risks
inadvertent information disclosure (see [RFC5321] and Section 4 of
this document). Mitigating inadvertent information disclosure is
also discussed in these locations.
The techniques described here invalidate methods that depend on
digital signatures over the envelope or any part of the message,
which includes the top-level header fields and body-part header
fields. Depending on the specific message being downgraded, the
following techniques are likely to break: DomainKeys Identified Mail
(DKIM), and possibly S/MIME and Pretty Good Privacy (PGP). The two
obvious mitigations are to stick to 7-bit transport when using these
techniques (as most/all of them presently require) or to make sure to
have UTF8SMTP end-to-end when needed.
Many gateways and servers on the Internet will discard header fields
with which they are not familiar. To the extent to which the
downgrade procedures depend on new header fields (e.g.,
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 13]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
"Downgraded-") to avoid information loss, the risk of having those
header fields dropped and subsequent implications must be identified.
In particular, if the "Downgraded-" header fields are dropped, there
is no possibility of reconstructing the original information at any
point (before, during, or after delivery). Such gateways violate
[RFC2979] and can be upgraded to correct the problem.
Even though the information is not lost, the original message cannot
be perfectly reconstructed because some downgrading methods remove
information (see Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.5). Hence, downgrading is a
one-way process.
While information in any email header field should usually be treated
with some suspicion, current email systems commonly employ various
mechanisms and protocols to make the information more trustworthy.
Currently, information in the new Downgraded-* header fields is
usually not inspected by these mechanisms, and may be even less
trustworthy than the traditional header fields. Note that the
Downgraded-* header fields could have been inserted with malicious
intent (and with content unrelated to the traditional header fields).
If an internationalized MUA would simply try to "upgrade" the message
for display purposes (that is, display the information in the
Downgraded-* header fields instead of the traditional header fields),
the effectiveness of the deployed mechanisms and protocols is likely
to be reduced, and the user may be exposed to additional risks. More
guidance on how to display downgraded messages is given in [DISPLAY].
Concerns about the trustworthiness of the Downgraded-* header fields
are not limited to displaying and replying in MUAs, and should be
carefully considered before using such header fields for other
purposes as well.
See the "Security Considerations" section in [RFC4952] for more
discussion.
8. Implementation Notes
8.1. RFC 2047 Encoding
While [RFC2047] has a specific algorithm to deal with whitespace in
adjacent encoded words, there are a number of deployed
implementations that fail to implement the algorithm correctly. As a
result, whitespace behavior is somewhat unpredictable in practice
when multiple encoded words are used. While RFC 5322 states that
implementations SHOULD limit lines to not more than 78 characters,
implementations MAY choose to allow overly long encoded words in
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 14]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
order to work around faulty [RFC2047] implementations.
Implementations that choose to do so SHOULD have an optional
mechanism to limit line length to 78 characters.
8.2. Trivial Downgrading
Downgrading is an alternative to avoid the rejection of messages that
require UTF8SMTP support by a server that does not provide such
support. Implementing the full specification of this document is
desirable, but a partial implementation is also possible.
If a partial downgrading implementation confronts an unsupported
downgrading target, the implementation MUST NOT send the message to a
server that does not support UTF8SMTP. Instead, it MUST either
reject the message or generate a notification of non-deliverability.
A partial downgrading, trivial downgrading, is discussed. It does
not support non-ASCII addresses in SMTP envelope and address header
fields, unknown header field downgrading, or the MIME body-part
header field downgrading. It supports:
o some simple header field downgrading: Subject
o comments and display name downgrading: From, To, Cc
o trace header field downgrading: Received
Otherwise, the downgrading fails.
Trivial downgrading targets mail messages that are generated by
UTF8SMTP-aware MUAs and contain non-ASCII characters in comments,
display names, and unstructured parts without using non-ASCII email
addresses. These mail messages usually do not contain non-ASCII
email addresses in the SMTP envelope and its header fields. But it
is not deliverable via a UTF8SMTP-unaware SMTP server. Implementing
full specification downgrading may be hard, but trivial downgrading
saves mail messages without using non-ASCII addresses.
8.3. 7bit Transport Consideration
The SMTP client may encounter a SMTP server that does not support the
8BITMIME SMTP extension [RFC1652]. The server does not support
"8bit" or "binary" data. Implementers need to consider converting
"8bit" data to "base64" or "quoted-printable" encoded form and adjust
the "Content-Transfer-Encoding" header field accordingly. If the
body contains multiple MIME parts, this conversion MUST be performed
for each MIME part.
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 15]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
9. IANA Considerations
IANA has registered the following header fields in the Permanent
Message Header Field registry, in accordance with the procedures set
out in [RFC3864].
Header field name: Downgraded-Mail-From
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: experimental
Author/change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): This document (Section 3)
Header field name: Downgraded-Rcpt-To
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: experimental
Author/change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): This document (Section 3)
Header field name: Downgraded-From
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: experimental
Author/change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): This document (Section 3)
Header field name: Downgraded-Sender
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: experimental
Author/change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): This document (Section 3)
Header field name: Downgraded-To
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: experimental
Author/change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): This document (Section 3)
Header field name: Downgraded-Cc
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: experimental
Author/change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): This document (Section 3)
Header field name: Downgraded-Bcc
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: experimental
Author/change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): This document (Section 3)
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 16]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
Header field name: Downgraded-Reply-To
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: experimental
Author/change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): This document (Section 3)
Header field name: Downgraded-Resent-From
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: experimental
Author/change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): This document (Section 3)
Header field name: Downgraded-Resent-Sender
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: experimental
Author/change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): This document (Section 3)
Header field name: Downgraded-Resent-To
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: experimental
Author/change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): This document (Section 3)
Header field name: Downgraded-Resent-Cc
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: experimental
Author/change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): This document (Section 3)
Header field name: Downgraded-Resent-Bcc
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: experimental
Author/change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): This document (Section 3)
Header field name: Downgraded-Resent-Reply-To
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: experimental
Author/change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): This document (Section 3)
Header field name: Downgraded-Return-Path
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: experimental
Author/change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): This document (Section 3)
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 17]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
Header field name: Downgraded-Disposition-Notification-To
Applicable protocol: mail
Status: experimental
Author/change controller: IETF
Specification document(s): This document (Section 3)
Furthermore, IANA is requested to refuse registration of all field
names that start with "Downgraded-". For unknown header fields, use
the downgrading method described in Section 3.3 to avoid conflicts
with existing IETF activity (Email Address Internationalization).
10. Acknowledgements
Significant comments and suggestions were received from John Klensin,
Harald Alvestrand, Chris Newman, Randall Gellens, Charles Lindsey,
Marcos Sanz, Alexey Melnikov, Frank Ellermann, Edward Lewis, S.
Moonesamy, and JET members.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC1652] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D.
Crocker, "SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport",
RFC 1652, July 1994.
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text",
RFC 2047, November 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2183] Troost, R., Dorner, S., and K. Moore, "Communicating
Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The
Content-Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183, August 1997.
[RFC2231] Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and Encoded
Word Extensions:
Character Sets, Languages, and Continuations", RFC 2231,
November 1997.
[RFC2979] Freed, N., "Behavior of and Requirements for Internet
Firewalls", RFC 2979, October 2000.
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 18]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
[RFC3461] Moore, K., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service
Extension for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs)",
RFC 3461, January 2003.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
September 2004.
[RFC4021] Klyne, G. and J. Palme, "Registration of Mail and MIME
Header Fields", RFC 4021, March 2005.
[RFC4952] Klensin, J. and Y. Ko, "Overview and Framework for
Internationalized Email", RFC 4952, July 2007.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321,
October 2008.
[RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
October 2008.
[RFC5335] Abel, Y., "Internationalized Email Headers", RFC 5335,
September 2008.
[RFC5336] Yao, J. and W. Mao, "SMTP Extension for Internationalized
Email Addresses", RFC 5336, September 2008.
[RFC5337] Newman, C. and A. Melnikov, "Internationalized Delivery
Status and Disposition Notifications", RFC 5337,
September 2008.
11.2. Informative References
[DISPLAY] Fujiwara, K., "Displaying Downgraded Messages for Email
Address Internationalization", Work in Progress,
March 2009.
[DSNBIS] Newman, C. and A. Melnikov, "Internationalized Delivery
Status and Disposition Notifications", Work in Progress,
December 2008.
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 19]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
Appendix A. Examples
A.1. Downgrading Example 1
This appendix shows an SMTP downgrading example. Consider a mail
message where:
o The sender address is "NON-ASCII-local@example.com", which is a
non-ASCII address. Its ASCII alternative is
"ASCII-local@example.com" and its display-name is "DISPLAY-local".
o The "To:" address is "NON-ASCII-remote1@example.net", which is a
non-ASCII address. Its ASCII alternative is
"ASCII-remote1@example.net" and its display-name is "DISPLAY-
remote1".
o The "Cc:" address is a non-ASCII address,
"NON-ASCII-remote2@example.org", without an alternative ASCII
address. Its display-name is "DISPLAY-remote2".
o Three display names contain non-ASCII characters.
o The Subject header field is "NON-ASCII-SUBJECT", which contains
non-ASCII characters.
o Assume the "To:" recipient's MTA (example.net) does not support
UTF8SMTP.
o Assume the "Cc:" recipient's MTA (example.org) supports UTF8SMTP.
The first example SMTP envelope/message is shown in Figure 1. In
this example, the "To:" recipient's session is the focus.
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 20]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
MAIL FROM:
ALT-ADDRESS=ASCII-local@example.com
RCPT TO:
ALT-ADDRESS=ASCII-remote1@example.net
RCPT TO:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message-Id: MESSAGE_ID
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: NON-ASCII-SUBJECT
From: DISPLAY-local >
To: DISPLAY-remote1 >
Cc: DISPLAY-remote2
Date: DATE
MAIL_BODY
Figure 1: Original envelope/message (example 1)
In this example, there are two SMTP recipients; one is "To:", the
other is "Cc:". The SMTP downgrading uses To: session downgrading.
Figure 2 shows an SMTP downgraded example.
MAIL FROM:
RCPT TO:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Downgraded-Mail-From: =?UTF-8?Q?>?=
Downgraded-Rcpt-To: =?UTF-8?Q?>?=
Message-Id: MESSAGE_ID
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: NON-ASCII-SUBJECT
From: DISPLAY-local >
To: DISPLAY-remote1 >
Cc: DISPLAY-remote2
Date: DATE
MAIL_BODY
Figure 2: SMTP downgraded envelope/message (example 1)
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 21]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
After SMTP downgrading, header field downgrading is performed. The
final downgraded message is shown in Figure 3. A Return-Path header
field will be added by the final destination MTA.
Return-Path:
Downgraded-Mail-From: =?UTF-8?Q?>?=
Downgraded-Rcpt-To: =?UTF-8?Q?>?=
Message-Id: MESSAGE_ID
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?NON-ASCII-SUBJECT?=
From: =?UTF-8?Q?DISPLAY-local?=
Downgraded-From: =?UTF-8?Q?DISPLAY-local_>?=
To: =?UTF-8?Q?DISPLAY-remote1?=
Downgraded-To: =?UTF-8?Q?DISPLAY-remote1_?=
=?UTF-8?Q?>?=
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?DISPLAY-remote2?= Internationalized address
=?UTF-8?Q?NON-ASCII-remote2@example.org?= removed:;
Downgraded-Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?DISPLAY-remote2_?=
=?UTF-8?Q??=
Date: DATE
MAIL_BODY
Figure 3: Downgraded message (example 1)
A.2. Downgrading Example 2
In many cases, the sender wants to use a non-ASCII address and the
recipient is a traditional mail user. The SMTP server handing mail
for the recipient and/or the recipient's MUA does not support
UTF8SMTP extension. Consider a mail message where:
o The sender address is "NON-ASCII-local@example.com", which is a
non-ASCII address. Its ASCII alternative is
"ASCII-local@example.com". It has a display-name "DISPLAY-local",
which contains non-ASCII characters.
o The "To:" address is "ASCII-remote1@example.net", which is ASCII-
only. It has a display-name, "DISPLAY-remote1", which contains
non-ASCII characters.
o The "Subject:" header field is "NON-ASCII-SUBJECT", which contains
non-ASCII characters.
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 22]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
The second example envelope/message is shown in Figure 4.
MAIL From:
ALT-ADDRESS=ASCII-local@example.com
RCPT TO:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Message-Id: MESSAGE_ID
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: NON-ASCII-SUBJECT
From: DISPLAY-local >
To: DISPLAY-remote1
Date: DATE
MAIL_BODY
Figure 4: Original message (example 2)
In this example, SMTP session is downgradable. Figure 5 shows an
SMTP downgraded envelope/message.
MAIL From:
RCPT TO:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Downgraded-Mail-From: =?UTF-8?Q?>?=
Message-Id: MESSAGE_ID
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: NON-ASCII-SUBJECT
From: DISPLAY-local >
To: DISPLAY-remote1
Date: DATE
MAIL_BODY
Figure 5: SMTP downgraded envelope/message (example 2)
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 23]
RFC 5504 UTF8SMTP Downgrade March 2009
After SMTP downgrading, header field downgrading is performed. The
downgraded example is shown in Figure 6.
Return-Path:
Downgraded-Mail-From: =?UTF-8?Q?>?=
Message-Id: MESSAGE_ID
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?NON-ASCII-SUBJECT?=
Downgraded-From: =?UTF-8?Q?DISPLAY-local_>?=
From: =?UTF-8?Q?DISPLAY-local?=
To: =?UTF-8?Q?DISPLAY-remote1?=
Date: DATE
MAIL_BODY
Figure 6: Downgraded message (example 2)
Authors' Addresses
Kazunori Fujiwara (editor)
Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd.
Chiyoda First Bldg. East 13F, 3-8-1 Nishi-Kanda
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0065
Japan
Phone: +81 3 5215 8451
EMail: fujiwara@jprs.co.jp
Yoshiro Yoneya (editor)
Japan Registry Services Co., Ltd.
Chiyoda First Bldg. East 13F, 3-8-1 Nishi-Kanda
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0065
Japan
Phone: +81 3 5215 8451
EMail: yone@jprs.co.jp
Fujiwara & Yoneya Experimental [Page 24]
RFC, FYI, BCP