My software is working with incoming e-mail from the one and only particular sender (let it be SantaClaus#hetnet.nl). According to RFC-2616 section 14 "From" header
MAY be used for logging purposes and
as a means for identifying the source of invalid or unwanted
requests.
That's exactly what I needed, so I wrote a code, which ignores all the messages where "From" field doesn't equal SantaClaus#hetnet.nl. It worked good, but one day things changed, and now all the messages form Santa Claus contains a different string in "From" field (exactly <SantaClaus#hetnet.nl>).
I already fixed my code, but I just wonder, is this header legal? Because the same RFC-2616 section 14 says:
The address SHOULD be machine-usable,
as defined by "mailbox" in RFC 822 [9]
as updated by RFC 1123 [8]:
From = "From" ":" mailbox
An example is:
From: webmaster#w3.org
Note the absense of angle brackets. But at the same time, many e-mail messages I receive on my Gmail account has something like this in the "From" field: "Santa Claus" <santaclaus#hetnet.nl>
RFC-822 allows email addresses to be specified either by a pure email-style address, called an "addr-spec" (e.g., name#host.domain); or by using a nickname ("phrase") with the email-style address (the "addr-spec") enclosed in angle brackets (Foo Bar <foobar#host.domain>). Your sender has gone from the first format to the second format, although here the nickname part seems to be empty.
By the way, RFC-2616 is for HTTP; you're looking at the definition of an optional, and (I imagine) rarely-used, From: header in the HTTP protocol. That doesn't seem to have any direct relevance on email formats.
Related
Somebody in my company is being subject to phishing. My first suggestion was just to change the password. However after awhile I received a fake mail from her address again.
Looking at the raw source of the email I found that there is another person's email in X-Sender-ID and I'm wondering who that might be. Is that the person who sent the email or can it be an account that has been hijacked? (I replaced the email with "somebody#host.com")
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: by smtp5.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: somebody-AT-host.com) with ESMTPA id DF2788019C;
Fri, 21 Nov 2014 07:54:42 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender-Id: somebody#host.com
Received: from smtp.emailsrvr.com ([UNAVAILABLE]. [2.133.148.211])
by 0.0.0.0:587 (trex/5.3.2);
Fri, 21 Nov 2014 12:54:46 GMT
What is X-Sender-ID? And what is the email it contains?
My deliberations are based on this RFC which describes the Privacy Enhancement for Emails which you are obviously using.
Basically it says about the X-Sender-ID:
[...] encapsulated header field, required for all
privacy-enhanced messages, identifies a message's sender and provides
the sender's IK identification component.
What does this mean?
First of all you have to check if the mail is properly signed. If thats the case you can be sure that somebody#host.com has a certificate. And you can be sure that the mail you received has been sent from this mail address.
I can't tell you the consequences which result out of this fact as I don't know how your company is deploying the certificates etc. ... the mail address/certificate could also have been hacked and thereby abused.
I hope this helps you for your further research.
While #LMF's answer is useful technical information, I'd like to offer a possible alternative explanation.
Spammers who are not familiar with e-mail (and PHP programmers with no other malicious intent) tend to succumb to cargo cult programming when it comes to email headers. In other words, if there is something they don't understand, they might think it does something useful, and include it in their message template.
Without knowledge about your email infrastructure, or other messages of yours to compare to, I would simply assume everything below the top-most Received: header is forged, and basically without meaning.
If you have a system which runs something called trex (maybe this one?) and it really manages to write a Received: header like that, I might be wrong. The format needlessly deviates from the de-facto standard Sendmail template in a few places, but it's not technically wrong (the format is basically free-form, but introducing ad-hoc syntax makes it harder to guess what the fields mean).
Again, more information about what your typical email (and your correspondent's typical mail) looks like, this is heavy on speculation.
The x-sender-id, along with the x-recipient-id are used to specify which interchange key was used in the broadcast of the message.
X-Sender-ID entity_id : issuing_authority : version
X-Recipient-ID entity_id : issuing_authority : version
The first field contains the identity of the sender or receiver. The first field is mandatory, must be unique, and must be formatted as user#host whereas the host is a fully qualified host address.
The second identifies the name of the authority which issued the interchange key.
The third field specifies the specific type of interchange key which was used. This is represented by an alphanumeric string defined by the issuing authority to label and organize the numerous interchange keys issued by that authority. It is recommmended that they use a timestamp but is not always the case.
If the field values of the x-sender-id second and third field are identical to that of the x-recipient-id they may be only listed in the field which is defined last.
Further Reading
"Distributed Computing & Cryptography: Proceedings of a DIMACS Workshop"
When someone loses track of an email that has been sent to them, and brings that to the sender's attention, it is common practice for the sender to simply forward or re-send the original email. I want to know if there is any [semi-]standard way to reference a specific email, such that a mail client could open that email if it has a copy of it. This might be in the form of a URI, or possibly some other form. Such a URI might reference the sender, recipient, date, time, or other headers that [should] remain intact between sender and recipient.
The Message-ID is a globally unique identifier for messages.
Note that the Message-ID header is optional, but recommended:
Though listed as optional in the table in section 3.6, every message SHOULD have a "Message-ID:" field.
RFC 2392 specifies the URI scheme mid (which was already reserved in RFC 1738):
The "mid" scheme uses (a part of) the message-id of an email message to refer to a specific message.
An example from RFC 2392:
previous message, shows how the approach you propose can be used to accomplish ...
What I'm trying to do is format the email address like so Foo Bar <foo#bar.com> so email clients (including web based like gmail) will show the sender as "Foo Bar" and not just "foo" since that is the prefix on the email.
Is this possible in Magento 1.5? If I try to put the formatting in the field itself I get an error message.
That's what the Sender Name field does. This is what my setup looks like and what it looks like in Thunderbird (my webmail client formats it similarly, too):
You may look at code/core/Mage/Core/Model/Email.php for the actual mail implementation. You may notice it uses Zend_Mail. Now, here is the catch:
For security reasons, Zend_Mail filters all header fields to prevent header
injection with newline (\n) characters. Double quotation is changed to single
quotation and angle brackets to square brackets in the name of sender and recipients.
If the marks are in email address, the marks will be removed.
What you can do though is to make a module to rewrite the current class Mage_Core_Model_Email and overwrite the send() function. I covered rewriting classes before in this question's answer. Then, in this new rewritten class, you could PHPmailer, invoke shell mail commands, or whatever PHP library you would happen to know that would allow this behaviour.
Best of luck.
I'm not sure if it can work. In magento inside is a Zend_Validate which does validation of such email addresses. And I dont think so that email like 'Foo Bar ' is valid. But I think the display in customer's email client depend on client, no?
I am currently extending an e-mail system with an autoresponse feature. In a dark past, I've seen some awesome mail loops, and I'm now trying to avoid such a thing from happening to me.
I've looked at how other tools ('mailbot', 'vacation') are doing this, grepped my own mail archive for suspicious mail headers, but I wonder if there is something else I can add.
My process at this point:
Refuse if sender address is invalid (this should get rid of messages with <> sender)
Refuse if sender address matches one of the following:
'^root#',
'^hostmaster#',
'^postmaster#',
'^nobody#',
'^www#',
'-request#'
Refuse if one of these headers (after whitespace normalization and lowercasing) is present:
'^precedence: junk$',
'^precedence: bulk$',
'^precedence: list$',
'^list-id:',
'^content-type: multipart/report$',
'^x-autogenerated: reply$',
'^auto-submit: yes$',
'^subject: auto-response$'
Refuse if sender address was already seen by the autoresponder in the recent past.
Refuse if the sender address is my own address :)
Accept and send autoresponse, prepending Auto-response: to the subject, setting headers Precedence: bulk and Auto-Submit: yes to hopefully prevent some remote mailer from propagating the autoresponse any further.
Is there anything I'm missing?
In my research so far I've come up with these rules.
Treat inbound message as autogenerated, ignore it and blacklist the sender if...
Return-Path header is <> or missing/invalid
Auto-Submitted header is present with any value other than "no"
X-Auto-Response-Suppress header is present
In-Reply-To header is missing
Note: If I'm reading RFC3834 correctly, your own programs SHOULD set this, but so far it seems some autoresponders omit this (freshdesk.com)
When sending outbound messages, be sure to...
Set the Auto-Submitted: auto-generated header (or auto-replied as appropriate)
Set your SMTP MAIL FROM: command with the null address <>
Note some delivery services including Amazon SES will set their own value here, so this may not be feasible
Check the recipient against the blacklist built up by the inbound side and abort sending to known autoresponders
Consider sending not more than 1 message per unit time (long like 24 hours) to a given recipient
Notes on other answers and points
I think ignoring Precedence: list messages will cause false positives, at least for my app's configuration
I believe the OP's "auto-submit" rule is a typo and the official header is Auto-Submitted
References
RFC3834
This SO question about Precedence header has several good answers
Wikipedia Email Loop Article
desk.com article
Comments welcome and I'll update this answer as this is a good question and I'd like to see an authoritative answer created.
Update 2014-05-22
To find if an inbound message is an "out-of-office" or other automatic reply, we use that procedure:
First, Find if header "In-Reply-To" is present. If not, that is an auto-reply.
Else, check if 1 of these header is present:
X-Auto-Response-Suppress (any value)
Precedence (value contains bulk, or junk or list)
X-Webmin-Autoreply (value 1)
X-Autogenerated (value Reply)
X-AutoReply (value YES)
Include a phrase like "This is an automatically-generated response" in the body somewhere. If your message body is HTML (not plain text) you can use a style to make it not visible.
Check for this phrase before responding. If it exists, odds are good it's an automated response.
My application uses sendmail to send outbound email. I set the 'From:' address using the following format:
Fred Dibnah <fred#dibnah.com>
I'm also setting the Reply-To and Return-Path headers using the exact same format.
This seems to work in the vast majority of cases but I have seen at least one instance in which this fails, namely when the name part of the above string contains a period (full stop):
Fred Dibnah, Inc. <fred#dibnah.com>
This fails deep inside the TMail code (I'm using Ruby) but it seems like a perfectly valid thing to do.
My question is, should I actually be setting the Return-Path and Reply-To headers using only the email address as opposed to the above Name + Email format? E.g.
fred#dibnah.com
Thanks.
In a situation like this, it is best to turn to the RFCs.
Upon reading up on your question, it appears as if You shouldn't be setting the Return-Path value ever. The final destination SMTP server is supposed to be setting this value as it transitions the message to your mailbox (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html starting at 4.4).
According to http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html the Reply-To field can have the following formats
local-part "#" domain (fred#dibnah.com for example)
display-name (Fred Dibna for example)
I would recommend using option 1 as it seems to be the most basic, and you will likely have less issues with that format. In choosing option 1, your Reply-To field should look like the following:
Reply-To: fred#dibna.com