Hello, Cross posting with MAIL and MARF -
In MILE related work, I have come across use cases that would like to include DKIM and SPF information in addition to specific mail fields (like the ones Chris lists below). We would like some help to figure out the best approach. Should we embed ARF and MARF RFC extensions to accommodate this need or should we look at updating RFC5901? Both take the approach of including an email message as opposed to using XML to tag each field and allow for this in the data model (in my opinion, that is fine and reduces bloat, but there may be other opinions). There was a draft published last year (link included below) that includes MARF in an IODE extension. Thanks, Kathleen ________________________________________ From: Harrington, Christopher Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:57 PM To: Moriarty, Kathleen; [email protected] Subject: RE: Mail fields I'm for the simplest solution as always. These are the indicator types that we routinely share. I would use these as a base: Email address (denoting if it is to or from) Email Subject Email attachment name Email attachment hash X-Mailer (from header) Hyperlink in email It's also very common to share the whole header. Bad guys routinely forge them and put extra header items that can be used as indicators. Although not an indicator sharing the entire email as an .eml or .msg file is also pretty common. Thanks, --Chris -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Moriarty, Kathleen Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:58 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [mile] Mail fields Hi, In looking at the updated rfc5070bis and coming across some requests for handling certain types of exchanges, I am curious to hear how others think we should handle mail related indicators and incidents. A couple of commonly exchanged fields were added into the Record class. You can still extend out using RFC5901 and include a full mail message, but if you wanted to include DKIM or Sender Policy Framework, you need something else. The IETF group MARF already solved these issues. MARF uses the email tags rather than XML and there was a draft that embedded MARF content into IODEF (contains an example), can be found here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vesely-mile-mail-abuse-00 Since mail is already marked and can be parsed, would this be a better option to use what MARF has already done to solve the question on how to exchange this data? Other options would be to update RFC5901 or to extend IODEF further. I prefer the use of MARF. It is already in use by mail operators, so there is adoption. Thanks, Kathleen _______________________________________________ mile mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
