Have you look at using Lionel Dyck's freeware XMITIP REXX program? More
info available at http://www.lbdsoftware.com/xmitip.html .

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 7:22 AM Jousma, David <[email protected]> wrote:

> Skip, Gil,
>
> Thanks for your feedback.  Our shop is really no different than many on
> this list.   Mainframe environment is held it a "higher standard", right or
> wrong.  Mainframe SMTP here has always been a roll your own as far as
> creating the SMTP text.   The biggest fear has been someone (internal)
> creating an email spoofing someone else, since there were no controls, and
> really there still aren’t any.   Sure, I can validate that the person
> submitting the email has the authority to do so, but from the available
> exit in z/OS 2.2 world, I have no way to programmatically validate that the
> person has formatted the contents of the email to be from themselves, and
> not from someone else, and there-in lies the problem for us.  Until z/OS
> 2.3 comes along with email addr support in RACF, how do I validate that?
> And yes, if someone did spoof the FROM:, we would go back through the logs
> to see who did it, and take all appropriate actions.
>
> The #3 in my list is again just typical "higher standard" issues with
> Audit.  The immediate need we have for allowing external email has to do
> with limitations with the IDAA (Netizza) hardware doing problem
> notifications to IBM via EMAIL instead of a "phone home".   Audit wants us
> to limit the outbound to certain domains like *@xx.ibm.com.
>
> Skip, you brought up the RYO program at your shop.  I can see some
> legitimacy in creating something like and doing the SAF calls as you
> mention.  I suppose I could do a WHEN PROGRAM type spool access for
> actually placing the formatted SMTP text on the spool as a way to ensure
> all email is properly formatted.   To do that, I'd have to create some
> yet-to-exist RACF(TSS) resource for every employee's email address for the
> RYO program to read.  For that, I might as well wait until the native
> support that arrives in z/OS V2.3.
>
> I am meeting with them again to understand their concerns about mainframe
> vs Outlook email.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Dave Jousma
> Manager Mainframe Engineering, Assistant Vice President
> [email protected]
> 1830 East Paris, Grand Rapids, MI  49546 MD RSCB2H
> p 616.653.8429 <(616)%20653-8429>
> f 616.653.2717 <(616)%20653-2717>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Jesse 1 Robinson
> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2017 11:08 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: CSSMTP user exit and external email
>
> It was pointed out to me that I may have given #3 too short shrift. We do
> not control destination addresses, but I suppose that a shop may have such
> a requirement. Again: if not for Outlook, then why for SMTP?
>
> If one is to use a program to generate the SMTP text, then it would be a
> simple extension to include a SAF check for the To: address. It could be as
> high-level as validating the URL itself as eligible for SMTP mail or a
> specific check that this particular Sender is allowed to send mail to that
> URL. Like OP, I would strenuously avoid hard-coding a whitelist even at the
> general URL level. SAF is flexible and easy to use via standard product
> commands.
>
> .
> .
> J.O.Skip Robinson
> Southern California Edison Company
> Electric Dragon Team Paddler
> SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
> 323-715-0595 <(323)%20715-0595> Mobile
> 626-543-6132 <(626)%20543-6132> Office ⇐=== NEW
> [email protected]
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin
> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2017 2:02 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: (External):Re: CSSMTP user exit and external email
>
> On 2017-06-17, at 21:06, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>
> > We have an RYO program available to the entire company. I use it
> > routinely to send messages and attachments internally and externally
> > with no impediments. The author of this program feels that
> >
> > #1 is satisfied by simply allowing anyone to use it. Does OP have
> restrictions as to who can send ordinary email via Outlook/Lotus/whatever?
> If not, then why put onerous limitations on SMTP? If so, then there exists
> an extraordinary level of control that needs to be duplicated in the SMTP
> environment. No implementation suggestions.
> >
> I pretty much agree.  Looking at the headers of the OP's message:
>
>     Received: from mailgw5.53.com ([216.82.180.36]) by
> mailapp-atl-1.ua.edu with
>               ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Jun 2017 06:30:34
> -0500
>     X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,347,1493697600";
>                    d="dat'59?scan'59,208,59";a="65124346"
>     Received: from unknown (HELO SOFLOKYDCDLPS04.INFO53.COM)
> ([10.212.195.196]) by
>               mailgw5.53.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 16 Jun
> 2017
>               07:30:33 -0400
>     Received: from S1FLOKYDCE2KX20.dm0001.info53.com
>               (s1flokydce2kx20.dm0001.info53.com [10.212.163.30]) by
>               SOFLOKYDCDLPS04.INFO53.COM (RSA Interceptor) for
>               <[email protected]>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:30:24 -0400
>     Received: from S1FLOKYDCE2KX05.dm0001.info53.com ([169.254.7.59]) by
>               S1FLOKYDCE2KX20.dm0001.info53.com ([10.212.163.30]) with
> mapi id
>               14.03.0319.002; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 07:30:24 -0400
>         ...
>     Sender:       IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]>
>     From:         "Jousma, David" <[email protected]>
>
> (Note the proper use of "From:" vis-a-vis "Sender:".)  ("169.254.7.59"?
> A self-assigned IP address, not more typical DHCP?)
>
> and:
>     502 $ nslookup
>     > set query=mx
>     > 53.com
>     Server:             205.171.3.25
>     Address:    205.171.3.25#53
>
>     Non-authoritative answer:
>     53.com      mail exchanger = 10 mailgw9.53.com.
>     53.com      mail exchanger = 10 mailgw5.53.com.
>     53.com      mail exchanger = 10 mailgw3.53.com.
>     53.com      mail exchanger = 10 mailgw7.53.com.
>
> It appears that 53.com has (several) smart mail host(s).  These should be
> capable of enforcing all of 53.com's corporate standards if CSSMTP is
> configured to route via mailgw*.53.com.  The tricky part may be to get
> David's z/OS jobs to properly present "David.Jousma's" credentials to that
> smart host.  How do 53.com's employees currently identify themselves to
> their SMTP server?  For the ISP I'm using here and Linux, I can keep the
> information in ~/.mutt/muttrc, but synching is manual.
>
> There should not be a z/OS user exit replicating the smart host rules and
> attempting to stay synchronized with them.
>
> > #2 is handled by the RYO program, which fetches sender name from SAF.
> User can place any desired name in the From: field for visibility, but the
> true identity is revealed and documented via SAF. One day a rogue user
> impersonates the CIO. Next day she is required to present her true name at
> the unemployment office.
> >
> > #3 seems pointless. If the To: user does not exist at the named URL,
> then the email fails. Just like any other incorrectly addressed email.
> Whether internal or external. What is to be gained by blocking the user
> from an everyday typo? Does anyone do that for standard email?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jousma, David
> > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 4:30 AM
> >
> > I'm looking for some feedback from shops that are already doing this.
> We converted to the newer CSSMTP a year or so ago.  Up until now, the only
> email generated from our mainframe systems has been internal email only.
> It's mostly simple reports from batch jobs, etc.  Any attempt to send email
> externally has been rejected.   We have had quite a few requests to allow
> for external email, and have been reviewing the controls that are
> available.  So, there are at least 3 challenges we can think of:
> >
> > 1)      Who is allowed to send external email?  We are able to control
> *who* can successfully deposit mail in the spool by securing the writer
> name that CSSMTP looks at, and only allow authorized users to send external
> email.
> >
> > 2)      Validating the FROM on the email content?  Audit & Risk are
> concerned with rogue email claiming to be from CEO, etc.  We are mostly
> mitigating this by item #1, and only allowing a "from" of [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> with a custom EZATCPIPCSSMTPV3 exit.   This issue
> should be solved with z/OS V2.3 with the added email support in RACF and
> JES.
> >
> > 3)      Validating at least at the domain level, the TO: recipients.
> Not sure how to handle this.  Don't really want to hard code a whitelist of
> allowed domains.
> >
> > Any ideas on how to handle #3 above?
> >
> For all of #1, #2, and #3, rely on your company's smart mail host.
>
> -- gil
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
> This e-mail transmission contains information that is confidential and may
> be privileged.   It is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If
> you receive this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy or disseminate
> it in any manner. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is
> prohibited. Please reply to the message immediately by informing the sender
> that the message was misdirected. After replying, please erase it from your
> computer system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>
-- 

Regards,

Mark T. Regan

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to