Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-usefor-usepro
draft-ietf-usefor-usepro
Usenet Format Working Group R. Allbery, Ed.
Internet-Draft Stanford University
Obsoletes: 1036 (if approved) C. Lindsey
Intended status: Standards Track University of Manchester
Expires: February 28, 2009 August 27, 2008
Netnews Architecture and Protocols
draft-ietf-usefor-usepro-12
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 28, 2009.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
Abstract
This document defines the architecture of Netnews systems and
specifies the correct manipulation and interpretation of Netnews
articles by software which originates, distributes, stores, and
displays them. It also specifies the requirements that must be met
by any protocol used to transport and serve Netnews articles.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
Internet Draft Comments
Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the Usenet Format
Working Group at ietf-usefor@imc.org.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1. Basic Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4. Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Duties of Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. General Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. The Path Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.1. Constructing the Path Header Field . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.2. Path Header Field Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3. Article History and Duplicate Suppression . . . . . . . . 13
3.4. Duties of a Posting Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.1. Proto-articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4.2. Multiple Injection of Articles . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.4.3. Followups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4.4. Construction of the References Header Field . . . . . 17
3.5. Duties of an Injecting Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.5.1. Forwarding Messages to a Moderator . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.6. Duties of a Relaying Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.7. Duties of a Serving Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.8. Duties of a Reading Agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.9. Duties of a Moderator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.10. Duties of a Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.10.1. Duties of an Outgoing Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.10.2. Duties of an Incoming Gateway . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.10.3. Gateway Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4. Media Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1. application/news-transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2. application/news-groupinfo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3. application/news-checkgroups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5. Control Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.1. Authentication and Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.2. Group Control Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.2.1. The newgroup Control Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.2.2. The rmgroup Control Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.2.3. The checkgroups Control Message . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.3. The cancel Control Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.4. The Supersedes Header Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
5.5. The ihave and sendme Control Messages . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.6. Obsolete Control Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.1. Compromise of System Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.2. Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.3. Leakage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Appendix A. Changes to the Existing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . 51
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 54
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
1. Introduction
1.1. Basic Concepts
"Netnews" is a set of protocols for generating, storing and
retrieving news "articles" whose format is defined in [USEFOR], and
for exchanging them amongst a readership that is potentially widely
distributed. It is organized around "newsgroups", with the
expectation that each reader will be able to see all articles posted
to each newsgroup in which he participates. These protocols most
commonly use a flooding algorithm which propagates copies throughout
a network of participating servers. Typically, only one copy is
stored per server, and each server makes it available on demand to
readers able to access that server.
"Usenet" is a particular worldwide publicly accessible network based
on the Netnews protocols. It is only one such possible network;
there are deployments of the Netnews protocols other than Usenet
(such as ones internal to particular organizations). This document
discusses the more general Netnews architecture and protocols.
1.2. Scope
This document defines the architecture of Netnews systems and
specifies the correct manipulation and interpretation of Netnews
articles by software which originates, distributes, stores, and
displays them. It addresses protocol issues that are independent of
transport protocols such as NNTP [RFC3977] and specifies the
requirements Netnews places on those underlying transport protocols.
It also specifies the handling of control messages.
The format and syntax of Netnews articles are specified in [USEFOR],
which should be read in conjunction with this document.
1.3. Requirements Notation
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 [RFC2119].
1.4. Syntax Notation
Syntax defined in this document uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form
(ABNF) notation (including the Core Rules) defined in [RFC5234] and
constructs defined in [USEFOR] and [RFC2822].
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
The ABNF rules defined elsewhere and used in this document are:
CRLF = <see [RFC5234] appendix B.1>
DIGIT = <see [RFC5234] appendix B.1>
HTAB = <see [RFC5234] appendix B.1>
SP = <see [RFC5234] appendix B.1>
WSP = <see [RFC5234] appendix B.1>
argument = <see [USEFOR] section 3.2.3>
article-locator = <see [USEFOR] section 3.2.14>
component = <see [USEFOR] section 3.1.4>
control-command = <see [USEFOR] section 3.2.3>
diag-keyword = <see [USEFOR] section 3.1.5>
diag-match = <see [USEFOR] section 3.1.5>
diag-other = <see [USEFOR] section 3.1.5>
dist-name = <see [USEFOR] section 3.2.4>
msg-id = <see [USEFOR] section 3.1.3>
newsgroup-name = <see [USEFOR] section 3.1.4>
path-diagnostic = <see [USEFOR] section 3.1.5>
path-identity = <see [USEFOR] section 3.1.5>
path-nodot = <see [USEFOR] section 3.1.5>
tail-entry = <see [USEFOR] section 3.1.5>
verb = <see [USEFOR] section 3.2.3>
display-name = <see [RFC2822] section 3.4>
local-part = <see [RFC2822] section 3.4.1>
mailbox = <see [RFC2822] section 3.4>
utext = <see [RFC2822] section 3.2.6>
1.5. Definitions
Any term used in this document that is defined in Section 1.5 of
[USEFOR] is used with the definition given there. In addition, the
following terms will be used:
A "hierarchy" is the set of all newsgroups whose names share a first
<component> (as defined in Section 3.1.4 of [USEFOR]). A "sub-
hierarchy" is the set of all newsgroups whose names share several
initial components.
A "news server" is further distinguished into the roles of "injecting
agent", "relaying agent", and "serving agent". An "injecting agent"
accepts a proto-article with the goal of distributing it to relaying
and serving agents and hence to readers. A "relaying agent" accepts
articles from other relaying agents or injecting agents and
distributes them to other relaying agents or serving agents. A
"serving agent" receives an article from a relaying agent or
injecting agent and makes it available to readers.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
A "user agent" is further distinguished into the roles of "posting
agent" and "reading agent". A "posting agent" is software which
assists in the preparation of a proto-article and then passes it to
an injecting agent. A "reading agent" is software which retrieves
articles from a serving agent for presentation to a reader.
"Injecting" an article is the processing of a proto-article by an
injecting agent. Normally this action is done once and only once for
a given article. "Multiple injection" is passing the same article to
multiple injecting agents, either serially or in parallel, by one or
several posting agents.
A "gateway" is software which receives news articles and converts
them to messages of some other kind (such as [RFC2822] mail
messages), receives messages of some other kind and converts them to
news articles, or conveys articles between two separate Netnews
networks.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
2. Transport
The exact means used to transmit articles from one agent to another
is not specified. NNTP [RFC3977] is the most common transport
mechanism for Netnews networks. Other methods in use include the
UUCP protocol [RFC0976] (extensively used in the early days of
Usenet) and physically delivered magnetic and optical media. Any
mechanism may be used in conjunction with this protocol provided that
it can meet the requirements specified here.
Transports for Netnews articles MUST treat news articles as
uninterpreted sequences of octets, excluding the values 0 (which may
not occur in Netnews articles) and 13 and 10 (which MUST only appear
in Netnews articles as a pair in that order and which together denote
a line separator). These octets are the US-ASCII [ASCII] characters
NUL, CR, and LF respectively.
NOTE: This corresponds to the range of octets permitted in MIME
8bit data [RFC2045]. Transports for Netnews are not required to
support transmission of MIME binary data.
In particular, transports MUST convey all header fields (including
header fields within message/rfc822 objects in article bodies)
unmodified even if they contain octets in the range 128 to 255.
Furthermore, transports for relaying and serving agents MUST, and
transports for other agents SHOULD, convey lines even if they exceed
998 characters in length, especially in article bodies. (This
requirement is stricter than MIME 8bit data.) These requirements
include the transport paths between posting agents, injecting agents,
serving agents, and reading agents.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
3. Duties of Agents
The following section specifies the duties of the agents involved in
the creation, relaying, and serving of Netnews articles. This
protocol is described by following the life of a typical Usenet
article: it is prepared by a posting agent, given to an injecting
agent, transferred through one or more relaying agents, accepted by a
serving agent, and finally retrieved by a reading agent. Articles
submitted to moderated groups go through an additional process, which
is described separately. Finally, the additional duties and
requirements of a gateway are discussed.
At each step, each agent has a set of checks and transformations of
the article that it is required to perform. These are described as
sequences of steps to be followed, but it should be understood that
it is the effect of these sequences that is important, and
implementations may use any method that gives rise to the same
effect.
Many news servers combine the functions of injecting agent, relaying
agent, and serving agent in a single software package. For the
purposes of this specification, such combined agents should
conceptually be treated as an injecting agent which sends articles to
a serving agent and optionally a relaying agent. The requirements of
all three agents MUST be still met when the news server is performing
the functions of those agents.
Control messages may have additional effects than those described
below on news servers which accept them. Those effects are described
in Section 5.
3.1. General Principles
There are two important principles that news implementors and
administrators need to keep in mind. The first is the well-known
Internet Robustness Principle:
Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send.
As applied to Netnews, this primarily means that unwanted or non-
compliant articles SHOULD be rejected as early as possible, but once
they are in general circulation, relaying and serving agents may wish
to accept them where possible rather than lose information. Posting
agents and injecting agents SHOULD therefore be maximally strict in
their application of both this protocol and [USEFOR], and reading
agents SHOULD be robust in the presence of violations of the Netnews
article format where possible.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
In the case of Netnews, there is an even more important principle,
derived from a much older code of practice, the Hippocratic Oath (we
may thus call this the Hippocratic Principle):
First, do no harm.
It is vital to realize that decisions which might be merely
suboptimal in a smaller context can become devastating mistakes when
amplified by the actions of thousands of hosts within a few minutes.
No Netnews agent is ever required to accept any article. It is
common for injecting, relaying, and serving agents to reject well-
formed articles for reasons of local policy (such as not wishing to
carry a particular newsgroup or attempting to filter out unwanted
articles). This document specifies how articles are to be treated if
they are accepted and specifies some cases where they must be
rejected, but an agent MAY always reject any article for other
reasons than those stated here.
A primary goal of the Netnews protocol is to ensure that all readers
receiving a particular article (as uniquely identified by the content
of its Message-ID header field) see the identical article, apart from
allowable divergence in trace headers and local metadata.
Accordingly, agents (other than moderators) MUST NOT modify articles
in ways other than described here. Unacceptable articles MUST be
rejected rather than corrected.
3.2. The Path Header Field
All news server components (injecting agents, relaying agents, and
serving agents) MUST identify themselves, when processing an article,
by prepending their <path-identity> (defined in Section 3.1.5 of
[USEFOR]) to the Path header field. Injecting agents MUST also use
the same identity in Injection-Info header fields they add, and
serving and relaying agents SHOULD use the same identity in any Xref
header fields they add.
The <path-identity> used by an agent may be chosen via one of the
following methods (in decreasing order of preference):
1. The fully-qualified domain name (FQDN) of the system on which the
agent is running.
2. A fully-qualified domain name (FQDN) within a domain affiliated
with the administrators of the agent and guaranteed to be unique
by the administrators of that domain. For example, the
uniqueness of server.example.org could be guaranteed by the
administrator of example.org even if there is no DNS record for
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
server.example.org itself.
3. Some other (arbitrary) name in the form <path-nodot> believed to
be unique and registered at least with all the other news servers
to which that relaying agent or injecting agent sends articles.
This option SHOULD NOT be used unless the earlier options are
unavailable or unless the name is of longstanding usage.
Some existing implementations treat <path-identity> as case-
sensitive, some case-insensitive. The <path-identity> therefore
SHOULD be all lowercase and implementations SHOULD compare identities
case-insensitively.
3.2.1. Constructing the Path Header Field
If a relaying or serving agent receives an article from an injecting
or serving agent that is part of the same news server, it MAY leave
the Path header field of the article unchanged. Otherwise, every
injecting, relaying, or serving agent that accepts an article MUST
update the Path header field as follows. Note that the Path header
field content is constructed from right to left by prepending
elements.
1. The agent MUST prepend "!" to the Path header field content.
2. An injecting agent SHOULD prepend the <path-diagnostic>
"!.POSTED", optionally followed by "." and the FQDN or IP address
of the source, to the Path header field content.
3. A relaying or serving agent SHOULD prepend a <path-diagnostic> to
the Path header field content, where the <path-diagnostic> is
chosen as follows:
* If the expected <path-identity> of the source of the article
matches the leftmost <path-identity> of the Path header
field's content, use "!" (<diag-match>), resulting in two
consecutive "!"s.
* If the expected <path-identity> of the source of the article
does not match, use "!.MISMATCH." followed by the expected
<path-identity> of the source or its IP address.
* If the relaying or serving agent is not willing or able to
check the <path-identity>, use "!.SEEN." followed by the FQDN,
IP address, or expected <path-identity> of the source.
Be aware that [RFC1036] did not include <path-diagnostic>.
Implementations which predate this specification will add only
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
single "!" characters between <path-identity> strings.
4. The agent MAY then prepend to the Path header field content "!"
or "!!" followed by an additional <path-identity> for itself
other than its primary one. Using "!!", and thereby adding a
<diag-match> since the <path-identity> clearly is verified, is
RECOMMENDED. This step may be repeated any number of times.
This is permitted for agents that have multiple <path-identity>s
(such as during a transition from one to another). Each of these
<path-identity>s MUST meet the requirements set out in
Section 3.2.
5. Finally, the agent MUST prepend its primary <path-identity> to
the Path header field content. The primary <path-identity> is
the <path-identity> it normally advertises to its peers for their
use in generating <path-diagnostic>s as described above.
Any agent which modifies the Path header field MAY fold it by
inserting FWS immediately after any <path-identity> or <diag-other>
it added (see section 3.1.5 of [USEFOR] for allowable locations for
FWS).
3.2.2. Path Header Field Example
Here is an example of a Path header field created following the rules
for injecting and relaying agents.
Path: foo.isp.example!.SEEN.isp.example!!foo-news
!.MISMATCH.2001:DB:0:0:8:800:200C:417A!bar.isp.example
!!old.site.example!barbaz!!baz.isp.example
!.POSTED.dialup123.baz.isp.example!not-for-mail
This article was injected by baz.isp.example as indicated by the
<diag-keyword> "POSTED". The injector has recorded that it received
the article from dialup123.baz.isp.example. "not-for-mail is a common
<tail-entry>.
The article was relayed to the relaying agent known, at least to
old.site.example, as "barbaz".
barbaz relayed it to old.site.example, which does not support <diag-
keyword> and therefore used the old "!" delimiter. This indicates
that the identity of "barbaz" was not verified and may have been
forged.
old.site.example relayed it to a news server using the <path-
identity> of bar.isp.example and claiming (by using the "!!" path
delimiter) to have verified that it came from old.site.example.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
bar.isp.example relayed it to foo-news which, not being convinced
that it truly came from bar.isp.example, inserted the <diag-keyword>
"MISMATCH" and then stated that it received the article from the IPv6
address [2001:DB8:0:0:8:800:200C:417A]. (This is not to say that
bar.isp.example was not a correct <path-identity> for that source but
simply that that identity did not match the expectations of foo-
news.)
foo-news then passed the article to foo.isp.example, which declined
to validate its <path-identity> and instead appended the <diag-
keyword> "SEEN" to indicate it knows the source of the article as
isp.example. This may be either an expected <path-identity> or the
FQDN of the system from which it received the article. Presumably
foo.isp.example is a serving agent that then delivered the article to
a reading agent.
baz.isp.example, bar.isp.example, and foo-news folded the Path header
field.
3.3. Article History and Duplicate Suppression
Netnews normally uses a flood-fill algorithm for propagation of
articles in which each news server offers the articles it accepts to
multiple peers and each news server may be offered the same article
from multiple other news servers. Accordingly, duplicate suppression
is key; if a news server accepted every article it was offered, it
may needlessly accept (and then potentially retransmit) dozens of
copies of every article.
Relaying and serving agents therefore MUST keep a record of articles
they have already seen and use that record to reject additional
offers of the same article. This record is called the "history" file
or database.
Each article is uniquely identified by its message identifier, so a
relaying or serving agent could satisfy this requirement by storing a
record of every message identifier that agent has ever seen. Such a
history database would grow without bound, however, so it is common
and permitted to optimize based on the Injection-Date or Date header
field of an article as follows. (In the following discussion, the
"date" of an article is defined to be the date represented by its
Injection-Date header field if present, otherwise its Date header
field.)
o Agents MAY select a cutoff interval and reject any article with a
date farther in the past than that cutoff interval. If this
interval is shorter than the time it takes for an article to
propagate through the network, the agent might reject an article
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
it had not yet seen, so it ought not be aggressively short. For
Usenet, for example, a cutoff interval of no less than seven days
is conventional.
o Agents that enforce such a cutoff MAY then drop records of
articles that had dates older than the cutoff from their history
databases. If such an article were offered to the agent again, it
would be rejected due to the cutoff date, so the history record is
no longer required to suppress the duplicate.
o Alternatively, agents MAY drop history records according to the
date when the article was first seen by that agent rather than the
date of the article. In this case, the history retention interval
MUST be at least 24 hours longer than the cutoff interval to allow
for articles dated in the future. This interval matches the
allowable error in the date of the article (see Section 3.5).
These are just two implementation strategies for article history,
albeit the most common ones. Relaying and serving agents are not
required to use these strategies, only to meet the requirement of not
accepting an article more than once. However, these strategies are
safe and widely deployed and implementors are encouraged to use one
of them, especially if they do not have extensive experience with
Netnews and the subtle effects of its flood-fill algorithm.
3.4. Duties of a Posting Agent
A posting agent is the component of a user agent that assists a
poster in creating a valid proto-article and forwarding it to an
injecting agent.
Posting agents SHOULD ensure that proto-articles they create are
valid according to [USEFOR] and any other applicable policies. They
MUST NOT create any Injection-Info header field; this header field
may only be added by the injecting agent.
If the proto-article already contains both Message-ID and Date header
fields, posting agents MAY add an Injection-Date header field to that
proto-article immediately before passing that proto-article to an
injection agent. They SHOULD do so if the Date header field
(representing the composition time of the proto-article) is more than
a day in the past at the time of injection. They MUST do so if the
proto-article is being submitted to more than one injecting agent;
see Section 3.4.2.
The Injection-Date header field is new in this revision of the
Netnews protocol and is designed to allow the Date header field to
hold the composition date (as recommended in section 3.6.1 of
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
[RFC2822]), even if the proto-article is not to be injected for some
time after its composition. However, note that all implementations
predating this specification ignore the Injection-Date header field
and use the Date header field in its stead for rejecting articles
older than their cutoff (see Section 3.3), and injecting agents
predating this specification do not add an Injection-Date header.
Articles with a Date header field substantially in the past will
still be rejected by implementations predating this specification,
regardless of the Injection-Date header field, and hence may suffer
poorer propagation.
Contrary to [RFC2822], which implies that the mailbox or mailboxes in
the From header field should be that of the poster or posters, a
poster who does not, for whatever reason, wish to use his own mailbox
MAY use any mailbox ending in the top level domain ".invalid"
[RFC2606].
Posting agents meant for use by ordinary posters SHOULD reject any
attempt to post an article which cancels or Supersedes another
article of which the poster is not the author or sender.
3.4.1. Proto-articles
A proto-article is an article in the format used by a posting agent
for offering to an injecting agent. It may omit certain header
fields which can be better-supplied by the injecting agent and will
not contain header fields that are added by the injecting agent. A
proto-article is only for transmission to an injecting agent and
SHOULD NOT be transmitted to any other agent.
A proto-article has the same format as a normal article except that
the Injection-Info and Xref header fields MUST NOT be present; the
Path header field MUST NOT contain a "POSTED" <diag-keyword>; and any
of the following mandatory header fields MAY be omitted: Message-ID,
Date, and Path. In all other respects, a proto-article MUST be a
valid Netnews article. In particular, the header fields which may be
omitted MUST NOT be present with invalid content.
If a posting agent intends to offer the same proto-article to
multiple injecting agents, the header fields Message-ID, Date, and
Injection-Date MUST be present and identical in all copies of the
proto-article. See Section 3.4.2.
3.4.2. Multiple Injection of Articles
Under some circumstances (posting to multiple disjoint networks,
injecting agents with spotty connectivity, or for redundancy, for
example), a posting agent may wish to offer the same article to
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
multiple injecting agents. In this unusual case, the goal is to not
create multiple independent articles but rather to inject the same
article at multiple points and let the normal duplicate suppression
facility of Netnews (see Section 3.3) ensure that any given agent
accepts the article only once, even if supposedly disjoint networks
have unexpected links.
Whenever possible, multiple injection SHOULD be done by offering the
same proto-article to multiple injecting agents. The posting agent
MUST supply the Message-ID, Date, and Injection-Date header fields,
and the proto-article as offered to each injecting agent MUST be
identical.
In some cases, offering the same proto-article to all injecting
agents may not be possible (such as when gatewaying, after the fact,
articles found on one Netnews network to another, supposedly
unconnected one). In this case, the posting agent MUST convert the
article back into a proto-article before passing it to another
injecting agent, but it MUST retain unmodified the Message-ID, Date,
and Injection-Date header fields. It MUST NOT add an Injection-Date
header field if it is missing from the existing article. It MUST
remove any Xref header field and either rename or remove any
Injection-Info header field and other trace fields.
NOTE: Multiple injection inherently risks duplicating articles.
Multiple injection after the fact, by converting an article back
to a proto-article and injecting it again, additionally risks
loops, loss of trace information, unintended repeat injection into
the same network, and other problems. It should be done with care
and only when there is no alternative. The requirement to retain
Message-ID, Date, and Injection-Date header fields minimizes the
possibility of a loop and ensures that the newly injected article
is not treated as a new, separate article.
Multiple injection of an article listing one or more moderated
newsgroups in its Newsgroups header field SHOULD only be done by a
moderator and MUST only be done after the proto-article has been
approved for all moderated groups to which it is to be posted and has
an Approved header field (see Section 3.9). Multiple injection of an
unapproved article intended for moderated newsgroups will normally
only result in the moderator receiving multiple copies, and if the
newsgroup status is not consistent across all injecting agents, may
result in duplication of the article or other problems.
3.4.3. Followups
A followup is an article that contains a response to the contents of
an earlier article, its precursor. In addition to its normal duties,
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
a posting agent preparing a followup is also subject to the following
requirements. Wherever in the following it is stated that by default
a header field is said to be inherited from one of those header
fields in the precursor, it means that its initial content is to be a
copy of the content of that precursor header field (with changes in
folding permitted). However, posters MAY then override that default
before posting.
Despite the historic practice of some posting agents, the Keywords
header field SHOULD NOT be inherited by default from the precursor
article.
1. If the Followup-To header field of the precursor article consists
of "poster", the followup MUST NOT be posted by default but by
default is to be emailed to the address given in the precursor's
Reply-To or From header field following the rules for an email
reply [RFC2822]. This action MAY be overridden by the poster, in
which case the posting agent should continue as if the
Followup-To header field in the precursor did not exist.
2. The Newsgroups header field SHOULD by default be inherited from
the precursor's Followup-To header field if present, and
otherwise from the precursor's Newsgroups header field.
3. The Subject header field SHOULD by default be inherited from that
of the precursor. The case-sensitive string "Re: " (including
the space after the colon) MAY be prepended to the content of its
Subject header field unless it already begins with that string.
NOTE: Prepending "Re: " serves no protocol function and hence
is not required, but it is widely expected and not doing so
would be surprising.
4. The Distribution header field SHOULD by default be inherited from
the precursor's Distribution header field, if present.
5. The followup MUST have a References header field referring to its
precursor constructed in accordance with Section 3.4.4.
3.4.4. Construction of the References Header Field
The following procedure is to be used whenever some previous article
(the "parent") is to be referred to in the References header field of
a new article, whether because the new article is a followup and the
parent is its precursor or for some other reason.
The content of the new article's References header field MUST be
formed from the content of the parent's References header field if
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
present and the content of the Message-ID header field of the parent.
If the parent had a References header, FWS as defined in [USEFOR]
MUST be added between its content and the Message-ID header field
content.
If the resulting References header field would, after unfolding,
exceed 998 characters in length (including its field name but not the
final CRLF), it MUST be trimmed (and otherwise MAY be trimmed).
Trimming means removing any number of message identifiers from its
content, except that the first message identifier and the last two
MUST NOT be removed.
An essential property of the References header field, guaranteed by
the above procedure and REQUIRED to be maintained by any extensions
to this protocol, is that an article MUST NOT precede one of its
parents.
3.5. Duties of an Injecting Agent
An injecting agent takes a proto-article from a posting agent and
either forwards it to a moderator or passes it to a relaying or
serving agent or agents. An injecting agent bears the primary
responsibility for ensuring that any article it injects conforms with
the rules of the Netnews standards. The administrator of an
injecting agent is also expected to bear some responsibility towards
the rest of the Netnews network to which it is connected for the
articles the injecting agent accepts.
Injecting agents, when rejecting articles, are encouraged to
communicate the reason for rejection to the posting agent using
whatever facility is provided by the underlying transport. The
injecting agent is in a unique position to communicate the reason for
rejection; relaying agents and serving agents normally have to reject
messages silently. The injecting agent therefore bears much of the
burden of diagnosing broken posting agents or communicating policy
violations to posters.
An injecting agent MUST have available a list (possibly empty) of
moderated groups for which it accepts articles and the corresponding
submission addresses. It SHOULD have available a list of valid
newsgroups to catch articles not posted to a valid newsgroup and
therefore likely to be silently discarded by relaying and serving
agents. Usually, an injecting agent is deployed in conjunction with
a serving agent and maintains these lists based on control messages
received by the serving agent.
An injecting agent processes proto-articles as follows:
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
1. It SHOULD verify that the article is from a trusted source (by,
for example, relying on the authorization capability of the
underlying transport used to talk to the posting agent).
2. It MUST reject any proto-article that does not have the proper
mandatory header fields for a proto-article; that has Injection-
Info or Xref header fields; that has a Path header field
containing the "POSTED" <diag-keyword>; or that is not
syntactically valid as defined by [USEFOR]. It SHOULD reject
any proto-article which contains a header field deprecated for
Netnews (see, for example, [RFC3798]). It MAY reject any proto-
article that contains trace header fields (e.g., NNTP-Posting-
Host) indicating that it was already injected by an injecting
agent that did not add Injection-Info or Injection-Date.
3. It SHOULD reject any article whose Injection-Date or Date header
field is more than 24 hours into the future (and MAY use a
margin less than 24 hours). It SHOULD reject any article whose
Injection-Date header field is too far in the past (older than
the cutoff interval of a relaying agent the injecting agent is
using, for example). It SHOULD similarly reject any article
whose Date header field is too far in the past, since not all
news servers support Injection-Date and only the injecting agent
can provide a useful error message to the posting agent. In
either case, this interval SHOULD NOT be any shorter than 72
hours into the past.
4. It SHOULD reject any proto-article whose Newsgroups header field
does not contain at least one <newsgroup-name> for a valid
group, or containing a <newsgroup-name> reserved for specific
purposes by Section 3.1.4 of [USEFOR] unless that specific
purpose or local agreement applies to the proto-article being
processed. Crossposting to unknown newsgroups is not precluded
provided that at least one of the newsgroups in the Newsgroups
header is valid.
5. The Message-ID and Date header fields with appropriate contents
MUST be added when not present in the proto-article.
6. The injecting agent MUST NOT alter the body of the article in
any way (including any change of Content-Transfer-Encoding). It
MAY add other header fields not already provided by the poster,
but injecting agents are encouraged to use the Injection-Info
header for such information and to minimize the addition of
other headers. It SHOULD NOT alter, delete, or reorder any
existing header field except the Path header field. It MUST NOT
alter or delete any existing Message-ID header field.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
7. If the Newsgroups header contains one or more moderated groups
and the proto-article does not contain an Approved header field,
the injecting agent MUST either forward it to a moderator as
specified in Section 3.5.1 or, if that is not possible, reject
it. This forwarding MUST be done after adding the Message-ID
and Date headers if required, and before adding the Injection-
Info and Injection-Date headers.
8. Otherwise, a Path header field with a <tail-entry> MUST be added
if not already present.
9. The injecting agent MUST then update the Path header field as
described in Section 3.2.1.
10. An Injection-Info header field SHOULD be added identifying the
source of the article and possibly other trace information as
described in Section 3.2.8 of [USEFOR].
11. If the proto-article already had an Injection-Date header field,
it MUST NOT be modified or replaced. If the proto-article had
both a Message-ID header field and a Date header field, an
Injection-Date header field MUST NOT be added, since the proto-
article may have been multiply injected by a posting agent that
predates this standard. Otherwise, the injecting agent MUST add
an Injection-Date header field containing the current date and
time.
12. Finally, the injecting agent forwards the article to one or more
relaying agents, and the injection process is complete.
3.5.1. Forwarding Messages to a Moderator
An injecting agent MUST forward the proto-article to the moderator of
the leftmost moderated group listed in the Newsgroups header field,
customarily via email. There are two standard ways in which it may
do this:
1. The complete proto-article is encapsulated, header fields and
all, within the email. This SHOULD be done by creating an email
message with a Content-Type of application/news-transmission with
the usage parameter set to "moderate". The body SHOULD NOT
contain any content other than the message. This method has the
advantage of removing any possible conflict between Netnews and
email header fields and any changes to those fields during
transport through email.
2. The proto-article is sent as an email with the addition of any
header fields (such as a To header field) required for an email.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
The existing Message-ID header field SHOULD be retained.
Although both of these methods have been used in the past and the
first has clear technical advantages, the second is in more common
use and many moderators are not prepared to deal with messages in the
first format. Accordingly, the first method SHOULD NOT be used
unless the moderator to which it is being forwarded is known to be
able to handle this method.
NOTE: Deriving the email address of the moderator of a group is
outside the scope of this document. It is worth mentioning,
however, that a common method is to use a forwarding service that
handles submissions for many moderated groups. For maximum
compatibility with existing news servers, such forwarding services
generally form the submission address for a moderated group by
replacing each "." in the <newsgroup-name> with "-" and then using
that value as the <local-part> of a <mailbox> formed by appending
a set domain.
Forwarding proto-articles to moderators via email is the most general
method and most common in large Netnews networks such as Usenet, but
any means of forwarding the article that preserves it without
injecting it MAY be used. For example, if the injecting agent has
access to a database used by the moderator to store proto-articles
awaiting processing, it may place the proto-article directly into
that database. Such methods may be more appropriate for smaller
Netnews networks.
3.6. Duties of a Relaying Agent
A relaying agent accepts injected articles from injecting and other
relaying agents and passes them on to relaying or serving agents. To
avoid bypass of injecting agent policies and forgery of Path and
Injector-Info headers, relaying agents SHOULD accept articles only
from trusted agents.
An article SHOULD NOT be relayed unless the sending agent has been
configured to supply and the receiving agent to receive at least one
of the <newsgroup-name>s in its Newsgroups header field and at least
one of the <dist-name>s in its Distribution header field (if
present). Exceptionally, control messages creating or removing
newsgroups (newgroup or rmgroup control messages, for example) SHOULD
be relayed if the affected group appears in its Newsgroups header
field and both the sending and receiving relaying agents are
configured to relay a newsgroup of that name (whether or not such a
newsgroup exists).
In order to avoid unnecessary relaying attempts, an article SHOULD
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
NOT be relayed if the <path-identity> of the receiving agent (or some
known alias thereof) appears as a <path-identity> (excluding within
the <tail-entry> or following a "POSTED" <diag-keyword>) in its Path
header field.
A relaying agent processes an article as follows:
1. It MUST reject any article without a Newsgroups header field or
Message-ID header field, or without either an Injection-Date or
Date header field.
2. It MUST examine the Injection-Date header field or, if absent,
the Date header field, and reject the article if that date is
more than 24 hours into the future. It MAY reject articles with
dates in the future with a smaller margin than 24 hours.
3. It MUST reject any article that has already been accepted. If it
implements one of the mechanisms described in Section 3.3, this
means that it MUST reject any article whose date falls outside
the cutoff interval since it won't know whether such articles had
been accepted previously or not.
4. It SHOULD reject any article that does not include all the
mandatory header fields. It MAY reject any article that contains
header fields that do not have valid contents.
5. It SHOULD reject any article that matches an already-received
cancel control message or the contents of the Supersedes header
field of an accepted article, provided that the relaying agent
chose (on the basis of local site policy) to honor that cancel
control message or Supersedes header field.
6. It MAY reject any article without an Approved header field posted
to a newsgroup known to be moderated. This practice is strongly
encouraged but the information necessary to do so is not required
to be maintained by a relaying agent.
7. It MUST update the Path header field as described in
Section 3.2.1.
8. It MAY delete any Xref header field already present. It MAY add
a new Xref header field for its own use (but recall that [USEFOR]
permits at most one such header field).
9. Finally, it passes the article on to other relaying and serving
agents to which it is configured to send articles.
Relaying agents SHOULD, where possible in the underlying transport,
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
inform the agent that passed the article to the relaying agent if the
article was rejected. Relaying agents MUST NOT inform any other
external entity of the rejection of an article unless that external
entity has explicitly requested that it be informed of such errors.
Relaying agents MUST NOT alter, delete, or rearrange any part of an
article except for the Path and Xref header fields. They MUST NOT
modify the body of articles in any way. If an article is not
acceptable as-is, the article MUST be rejected rather than modified.
3.7. Duties of a Serving Agent
A serving agent accepts articles from a relaying agent or injecting
agent, stores it, and makes it available to reading agents. Articles
are normally indexed by newsgroup and <article-locator> (Section
3.2.14 of [USEFOR]), usually in the form of a decimal number.
If the serving agent stores articles by newsgroup, control messages
SHOULD NOT be stored in the newsgroups listed in the control
message's Newsgroups header field. Instead, they SHOULD be stored in
a newsgroup in the hierarchy "control", which is reserved for this
purpose. Conventionally, control messages are stored in newsgroups
named for the type of control message (such as "control.cancel" for
cancel control messages).
A serving agent MUST have available a list (possibly empty) of
moderated groups for which it accepts articles so that it can reject
unapproved articles posted to moderated groups. Frequently a serving
agent is deployed in combination with an injecting agent and can use
the same list as the injecting agent.
A serving agent processes articles as follows:
1. It MUST reject any article that does not include all the
mandatory header fields or any article which contains header
fields that do not have valid contents.
2. It MUST examine the Injection-Date header field or, if absent,
the Date header field, and reject the article if that date is
more than 24 hours into the future. It MAY reject articles with
dates in the future with a smaller margin than 24 hours.
3. It MUST reject any article that has already been accepted. If it
implements one of the mechanisms described in Section 3.3, this
means that it MUST reject any article whose date falls outside
the cutoff interval since it won't know whether such articles had
been accepted previously or not.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
4. It SHOULD reject any article that matches an already-received and
honored cancel message or Supersedes header field following the
same rules as a relaying agent (Section 3.6).
5. It MUST reject any article without an Approved header field
posted to any newsgroup listed as moderated.
6. It MUST update the Path header field as described in
Section 3.2.1.
7. It MUST (except when specially configured to preserve the
<article-locator>s set by the sending site) remove any Xref
header field from each article. It then MAY (and usually will)
add a new Xref header field (but recall that [USEFOR] permits at
most one such header field).
8. Finally, it stores the article and makes it available for reading
agents.
Serving agents MUST NOT create new newsgroups simply because an
unrecognized <newsgroup-name> occurs in a Newsgroups header field.
Newsgroups are normally created via control messages (Section 5.2.1).
Serving agents MUST NOT alter, delete, or rearrange any part of an
article except for the Path and Xref header fields. They MUST NOT
modify the body of the articles in any way. If an article is not
acceptable as-is, the article MUST be rejected rather than modified.
3.8. Duties of a Reading Agent
Since a reading agent is only a passive participant in a Netnews
network, there are no specific protocol requirements placed on it.
See [USEAGE] for best-practice recommendations.
3.9. Duties of a Moderator
A moderator receives news articles, customarily by email, decides
whether to approve them and, if so, either passes them to an
injecting agent or forwards them to further moderators.
Articles are normally received by the moderator in email either
encapsulated as an object of Content-Type application/
news-transmission (or possibly encapsulated but without an explicit
Content-Type header field), or else directly as an email already
containing all the header fields appropriate for a Netnews article
(see Section 3.5.1). Moderators who may receive articles via email
SHOULD be prepared to accept articles in either format.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
There are no protocol restrictions on what criteria are used for
accepting or rejecting messages or on what modifications a moderator
may make to a message (both header fields and body) before injecting
it. Recommended best practice, however, is to make the minimal
required changes. Moderators need to be aware that modifications
made to articles may invalidate signatures created by the poster or
previous moderators. See [USEAGE] for further best-practice
recommendations.
Moderators process articles as follows:
1. They decide whether to approve or reject a proto-article, and if
approved, prepare the proto-article for injection. If the proto-
article was received as an unencapsulated email message, this
will require converting it back to a valid Netnews proto-article.
If the article is rejected, it is normally rejected for all
newsgroups to which it was posted and nothing further is done.
If it is approved, the moderator proceeds with the following
steps.
2. If the Newsgroups header field contains further moderated
newsgroups for which approval has not already been given, they
may either reach some agreement with the other moderators on the
disposition of the article or, more generally, add an indication
(identifying both the moderator and the name of the newsgroup)
that they approve the article and then forward it to the
moderator of the leftmost unapproved newsgroup. This forwarding
SHOULD be done following the procedure in Section 3.5.1 and MAY
be done by rotating the <newsgroup-name>s in the Newsgroups
header field so that the leftmost unapproved newsgroup is is the
leftmost moderated newsgroup in that field and then posting it,
letting the injecting agent do the forwarding. However, if using
this mechanism, they MUST first ensure that the article contains
no Approved header field.
3. If the Newsgroups header field contains no further unapproved
moderated groups, they add an Approved header field (see Section
3.2.1 of [USEFOR]) identifying the moderator and, insofar as is
possible, all the other moderators who have approved the article.
The moderator who takes this step assumes responsibility for
ensuring that the article was approved by the moderators of all
moderated newsgroups to which it was posted.
4. Moderators are encouraged to retain the Message-ID header field
if it is valid, and also retain the Date header field unless it
appears to be stale (72 hours or more in the past) for reasons
understood by the moderator (such as delays in the moderation
process) in which case they MAY substitute the current date. Any
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
Injection-Date, Injection-Info, or Xref header fields already
present MUST be removed.
5. Any Path header field MUST either be removed or truncated to only
those entries following its "POSTED" <diag-keyword>, if any.
6. The moderator then passes the article to an injecting agent,
having first observed all the duties of a posting agent.
3.10. Duties of a Gateway
A gateway transforms an article into the native message format of
another medium, or translates the messages of another medium into
news articles, or transforms articles into proto-articles for
injection into a separate Netnews network. Encapsulation of a news
article into a message of MIME type application/news-transmission, or
the subsequent undoing of that encapsulation, is not gatewaying,
since it involves no transformation of the article.
There are two basic types of gateway, the outgoing gateway that
transforms a news article into a different type of message, and the
incoming gateway that transforms a message from another network into
a news proto-article and injects it into a Netnews network. These
are handled separately below.
Transformation of an article into another medium stands a very high
chance of discarding or interfering with the protection inherent in
the news system against duplicate articles. The most common problem
caused by gateways is loops that repeatedly reinject previously
posted articles. To prevent this, a gateway MUST take precautions
against loops, as detailed below.
The transformations applied to the message SHOULD be as minimal as
possible while still accomplishing the gatewaying. Every change made
by a gateway potentially breaks a property of one of the media or
loses information, and therefore only those transformations made
necessary by the differences between the media should be applied.
If bidirectional gatewaying (both an incoming and an outgoing
gateway) is being set up between Netnews and some other medium, the
incoming and outgoing gateways SHOULD be coordinated to avoid
unintended reinjection of gated articles. Circular gatewaying
(gatewaying a message into another medium and then back into Netnews)
SHOULD NOT be done; encapsulation of the article SHOULD be used
instead where this is necessary.
Safe bidirectional gatewaying between a mailing list and a newsgroup
is far easier if the newsgroup is moderated. Posts to the moderated
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
group and submissions to the mailing list can then go through a
single point that does the necessary gatewaying and then sends the
message out to both the newsgroup and the mailing list at the same
time, eliminating most of the possibility of loops. Bidirectional
gatewaying between a mailing list and an unmoderated newsgroup, in
contrast, is difficult to do correctly and is far more fragile.
Newsgroups intended to be bidirectionally gated to a mailing list
SHOULD therefore be moderated where possible, even if the moderator
is a simple gateway and injecting agent that correctly handles
crossposting to other moderated groups and otherwise passes all
traffic.
3.10.1. Duties of an Outgoing Gateway
From the perspective of Netnews, an outgoing gateway is just a
special type of reading agent. The exact nature of what the outgoing
gateway will need to do to articles depends on the medium to which
the articles are being gated. The operation of the outgoing gateway
is subject to additional constraints due to the possibility of one or
more corresponding incoming gateways back from that medium to
Netnews, since this raises the danger of loops.
The following practices are encouraged for all outgoing gateways,
regardless of whether there is known to be a related incoming
gateway, both as precautionary measures and as a guideline to quality
of implementation:
1. The message identifier of the news article should be preserved if
at all possible, preferably as or within the corresponding unique
identifier of the other medium, but if not at least as a comment
in the message. This helps greatly with preventing loops.
2. The Date and Injection-Date of the news article should also be
preserved if possible, for similar reasons.
3. The message should be tagged in some way so as to prevent its
reinjection into Netnews. This may be impossible to do without
knowledge of potential incoming gateways, but it is better to try
to provide some indication even if not successful; at the least,
a human-readable indication that the article should not be gated
back to Netnews can help locate a human problem.
4. Netnews control messages should not be gated to another medium
unless they would somehow be meaningful in that medium.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
3.10.2. Duties of an Incoming Gateway
The incoming gateway has the responsibility of ensuring that all of
the requirements of this protocol are met by the articles that it
forms. In addition to its special duties as a gateway, it bears all
of the duties and responsibilities of a posting agent as well, and
additionally has the same responsibility of a relaying agent to
reject articles that it has already gatewayed.
An incoming gateway MUST NOT gate the same message twice. It may not
be possible to ensure this in the face of mangling or modification of
the message, but at the very least a gateway, when given a copy of a
message it has already gated identical except for trace header fields
(like Received in Email or Path in Netnews) MUST NOT gate the message
again. An incoming gateway SHOULD take precautions against having
this rule bypassed by modifications of the message that can be
anticipated.
News articles prepared by gateways MUST be valid news proto-articles
(see Section 3.4.1). This often requires the gateway to synthesize a
conforming article from non-conforming input. The gateway MUST then
pass the article to an injecting agent, not directly to a relaying
agent.
Incoming gateways MUST NOT pass control messages (articles containing
a Control or Supersedes header field) without removing or renaming
that header field. Gateways MAY, however, generate cancel control
messages for messages they have gatewayed. If a gateway receives a
message that it can determine is a valid equivalent of a cancel
control message in the medium it is gatewaying, it SHOULD discard
that message without gatewaying it, generate a corresponding cancel
control message of its own, and inject that cancel control message.
NOTE: It is not unheard of for mail-to-news gateways to be used to
post control messages, but encapsulation should be used for these
cases instead. Gateways by their very nature are particularly
prone to loops. Spews of normal articles are bad enough; spews of
control messages with special significance to the news system,
possibly resulting in high processing load or even email sent for
every message received, are catastrophic. It is far preferable to
construct a system specifically for posting control messages that
can do appropriate consistency checks and authentication of the
originator of the message.
If there is a message identifier that fills a role similar to that of
the Message-ID header field in news, it SHOULD be used in the
formation of the message identifier of the news article, perhaps with
transformations required to meet the uniqueness requirement of
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
Netnews and with the removal of any comments so as to comply with the
syntax in Section 3.1.3 of [USEFOR]. Such transformations SHOULD be
designed so that two messages with the same identifier generate the
same Message-ID header field.
NOTE: Message identifiers play a central role in the prevention of
duplicates, and their correct use by gateways will do much to
prevent loops. Netnews does, however, require that message
identifiers be unique, and therefore message identifiers from
other media may not be suitable for use without modification. A
balance must be struck by the gateway between preserving
information used to prevent loops and generating unique message
identifiers.
Exceptionally, if there are multiple incoming gateways for a
particular set of messages, each to a different newsgroup(s), each
one SHOULD generate a message identifier unique to that gateway.
Each incoming gateway nonetheless MUST ensure that it does not gate
the same message twice.
NOTE: Consider the example of two gateways of a given mailing list
into two separate Usenet newsgroups, both of which preserve the
email message identifier. Each newsgroup may then receive a
portion of the messages (different sites seeing different
portions). In these cases, where there is no one "official"
gateway, some other method of generating message identifiers has
to be used to avoid collisions. It would obviously be preferable
for there to be only one gateway which crossposts, but this may
not be possible to coordinate.
If no date information is available, the gateway MAY supply a Date
header field with the gateway's current date. If only partial
information is available (such as date but not time), this SHOULD be
fleshed out to a full Date by adding default values rather than
discarding this information. Only in very exceptional circumstances
should Date information be discarded, as it plays an important role
in preventing reinjection of old messages.
An incoming gateway MUST add a Sender header field to the news
article it forms containing the <mailbox> of the administrator of the
gateway. Problems with the gateway may be reported to this
<mailbox>. The <display-name> portion of this <mailbox> SHOULD
indicate that the entity responsible for injection of the message is
a gateway. If the original message already had a Sender header
field, it SHOULD be renamed so that its contents can be preserved.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
3.10.3. Gateway Example
To illustrate the type of precautions that should be taken against
loops, here is an example of the measures taken by one particular
combination of mail-to-news and news-to-mail gateways designed to
handle bidirectional gatewaying between mailing lists and unmoderated
groups:
1. The news-to-mail gateway preserves the message identifier of the
news article in the generated email message. The mail-to-news
gateway likewise preserves the email message identifier provided
that it is syntactically valid for Netnews. This allows the news
system's built-in suppression of duplicates to serve as the first
line of defense against loops.
2. The news-to-mail gateway adds an X-Gateway header field to all
messages it generates. The mail-to-news gateway discards any
incoming messages containing this header field. This is robust
against mailing list managers that replace the message
identifier, and against any number of email hops, provided that
the other message header fields are preserved.
3. The mail-to-news gateway prepends the host name from which it
received the email message to the content of the Path header
field. The news-to-mail gateway refuses to gateway any message
that contains the list server name in its Path header field
(including in the tail section). This is robust against any
amount of munging of the message header fields by the mailing
list, provided that the email only goes through one hop.
4. The mail-to-news gateway is designed never to generate bounces to
the envelope sender. Instead, articles that are rejected by the
news server (for reasons not warranting silent discarding of the
message) result in a bounce message sent to an errors address
known not to forward to any mailing lists, so that they can be
handled by the news administrators.
These precautions have proven effective in practice at preventing
loops for this particular application (bidirectional gatewaying
between mailing lists and locally distributed newsgroups where both
gateways can be designed together). General gatewaying to world-wide
newsgroups poses additional difficulties; one must be very wary of
strange configurations, such as a newsgroup gated to a mailing list
which is in turn gated to a different newsgroup.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
4. Media Types
This document defines several media types, which shall be registered
with IANA as provided for in [RFC4288].
The media type message/news, as previously registered with IANA, is
hereby declared obsolete. It was never widely implemented, and its
default treatment as application/octet-stream by agents that did not
recognize it was counter-productive. The media type message/rfc822
(defined in [RFC2046], section 5.2.1) SHOULD be used in its place.
The updated MIME media type definition of message/news is:
MIME type name: message
MIME subtype name: news
Required parameters: none
Optional parameters: charset, compare message/rfc822
Encoding considerations: compare message/rfc822 (RFC 2046)
Security considerations: OBSOLETE, use message/rfc822.
Interoperability considerations:
Rarely used; and therefore often
handled as application/octet-stream.
Disposition should by default be inline.
Published specification: [SON-OF-1036], RFCXXXX
Applications that use this media type:
Some old mail and news user agents.
Intended usage: OBSOLETE
Author: Henry Spencer
Change controller: IETF
4.1. application/news-transmission
The media type application/news-transmission is intended for the
encapsulation of complete news articles where the intention is that
the recipient should then inject them into Netnews. This application
type provides one of the methods for mailing articles to moderators
(see Section 3.5.1) and may be used to convey messages to an
injecting agent. This encapsulation removes the need to transform an
email message into a Netnews proto-article and provides a way to send
a Netnews article using MIME through a transport medium that does not
support 8bit data.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
The MIME media type definition of application/news-transmission is:
MIME type name: application
MIME subtype name: news-transmission
Required parameters: none
Optional parameters: One and only one of "usage=moderate",
"usage=inject", or "usage=relay".
Encoding considerations: A transfer-encoding different from that
of the article transmitted MAY be
supplied to ensure correct transmission
over some 7bit transport medium.
Security considerations: A news article may be a control message,
which if processed could have effects on
the recipient host's system beyond just
storage of the article.
Published specification: RFCXXXX
Body part: A complete proto-article ready for
injection into Netnews or an article
being relayed to another agent.
Applications that use this media type:
Injecting agents, Netnews moderators.
Intended usage: COMMON
Change controller: IETF
usage=moderate indicates the article is intended for a moderator,
usage=inject for an injecting agent, and usage=relay for a relaying
agent. The entity receiving the article may only implement one type
of agent, in which case the parameter MAY be omitted.
Contrary to the prior registration of this media type, article
batches are not permitted as a body part. Multiple messages or a
message with multiple application/news-transmission parts may be used
instead.
4.2. application/news-groupinfo
The application/news-groupinfo media type is used in conjunction with
the newgroup control message (see Section 5.2.1). Its body part
contains brief information about a newsgroup: the newsgroup name, its
description, and its moderation status.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
The MIME media type definition of application/news-groupinfo is:
MIME type name: application
MIME subtype name: news-groupinfo
Required parameters: none
Optional parameters: charset, which MUST be a charset
registered for use with MIME text types
and has the same syntax as the parameter
defined for text/plain [RFC2046].
Specifies the charset of the body part.
If not given, the charset defaults to
US-ASCII [ASCII].
Encoding considerations: 7bit or 8bit MUST be used to maintain
compatibility.
Security considerations: None.
Interoperability considerations:
Disposition should by default be inline.
Applications that use this media type:
Control message issuers, relaying
agents, serving agents.
Published specification: RFCXXXX
Intended usage: COMMON
Change controller: IETF
The content of the application/news-groupinfo body part is defined
as:
groupinfo-body = [ newsgroups-tag CRLF ]
newsgroups-line CRLF
newsgroups-tag = %x46.6F.72 SP %x79.6F.75.72 SP
%x6E.65.77.73.67.72.6F.75.70.73 SP
%x66.69.6C.65.3A
; case sensitive
; "For your newsgroups file:"
newsgroups-line = newsgroup-name
[ 1*HTAB newsgroup-description ]
[ *WSP moderation-flag ]
newsgroup-description
= eightbit-utext *( *WSP eightbit-utext )
moderation-flag = SP "(" %x4D.6F.64.65.72.61.74.65.64 ")"
; SPACE + case sensitive "(Moderated)"
eightbit-utext = utext / %d127-255
This unusual format is backward-compatible with the scanning of the
body of newgroup control messages for descriptions done by Netnews
implementations that predate this specification. Although optional,
the <newsgroups-tag> SHOULD be included for backward compatibility.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
The <newsgroup-description> MUST NOT contain any occurrence of the
string "(Moderated)" within it. Moderated newsgroups MUST be marked
by appending the case sensitive text " (Moderated)" at the end.
While a charset parameter is defined for this media type, most
existing software does not understand MIME header fields or correctly
handle descriptions in a variety of charsets. Using a charset of US-
ASCII where possible is therefore RECOMMENDED; if not possible, UTF-8
[RFC3629] SHOULD be used. Regardless of the charset used, the
constraints of the above grammar MUST be met and the <newsgroup-name>
MUST be represented in that charset using the same octets as would be
used with a charset of US-ASCII.
4.3. application/news-checkgroups
The application/news-checkgroups media type contains a list of
newsgroups within a hierarchy or hierarchies, including their
descriptions and moderation status. It is primarily for use with the
checkgroups control message (see Section 5.2.3).
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
The MIME media type definition of application/news-checkgroups is:
MIME type name: application
MIME subtype name: news-checkgroups
Required parameters: none
Optional parameters: charset, which MUST be a charset
registered for use with MIME text types
and has the same syntax as the parameter
defined for text/plain [RFC2046].
Specifies the charset of the body part.
If not given, the charset defaults to
US-ASCII [ASCII].
Encoding considerations: 7bit or 8bit MUST be used to maintain
compatibility.
Security considerations: This media type provides only a means
for conveying a list of newsgroups and
does not provide any information
indicating whether the sender is
authorized to state which newsgroups
should exist within a hierarchy. Such
authorization must be accomplished by
other means.
Interoperability considerations:
Disposition should by default be inline.
Applications that use this media type:
Control message issuers, relaying
agents, serving agents.
Published specification: RFCXXXX
Intended usage: COMMON
Change controller: IETF
The content of the application/news-groupinfo body part is defined
as:
checkgroups-body = *( valid-group CRLF )
valid-group = newsgroups-line ; see 4.2
The same restrictions on charset, <newsgroup-name>, and <newsgroup-
description> apply for this media type as for application/
news-groupinfo.
One application/news-checkgroups message may contain information for
one or more hierarchies and is considered complete for any hierarchy
for which it contains a <valid-group>. In other words, an
application/news-checkgroups body part consisting of:
example.moderated A moderated newsgroup (Moderated)
example.test An unmoderated test group
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
is a statement that the example.* hierarchy contains two newsgroups,
example.moderated and example.test, and no others. This media type
therefore MUST NOT be used for conveying partial information about a
hierarchy; if a group from a given hierarchy is present, all groups
that exist in that hierarchy MUST be listed.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
5. Control Messages
A control message is an article which contains a Control header field
and thereby indicates that some action should be taken by an agent
other than distribution and display. Any article containing a
Control header field (defined in Section 3.2.3 of [USEFOR]) is a
control message. Additionally, the action of an article containing a
Supersedes header field is described here; while such an article is
not a control message, it specifies an action similar to the cancel
control message.
The <control-command> of a Control header field comprises a <verb>,
which indicates the action to be taken, and one or more <argument>
values, which supply the details. For some control messages, the
body of the article is also significant. Each recognized <verb> (the
control message type) is described in a separate section below.
Agents MAY accept other control message types than those specified
below, and MUST either ignore or reject control messages with
unrecognized types. Syntactic definitions of valid <argument> values
and restrictions on control message bodies are given in the section
for each control message type.
Contrary to [RFC1036], the presence of a Subject header field
starting with the string "cmsg " MUST NOT cause an article to
interpreted as a control message. Agents MAY reject an article with
no Control header field and such a Subject header field as ambiguous.
Likewise, the presence of a <newsgroup-name> ending in ".ctl" in the
Newsgroups header field or the presence of an Also-Control header
field MUST NOT cause the article to be interpreted as a control
message.
5.1. Authentication and Authorization
Control messages specify actions above and beyond the normal
processing of an article and are therefore potential vectors of abuse
and unauthorized action. There is, at present, no standardized means
of authenticating the sender of a control message or verifying that
the contents of a control message were sent by the claimed sender.
There are, however, some unstandardized authentication mechanisms in
common use.
Agents acting on control messages SHOULD take steps to authenticate
control messages before acting on them, as determined by local
authorization policy. Whether this is done via the use of an
unstandardized authentication protocol, by comparison with
information obtained through another protocol, by human review, or by
some other means is left unspecified by this document. Further
extensions or revisions of this protocol are expected to standardize
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
a digital signature mechanism.
Agents are expected to have their own local authorization policies
for which control messages will be honored. No Netnews agent is ever
required to act on any control message. The following descriptions
specify the actions that a control message requests, but an agent MAY
always decline to act on any given control message.
5.2. Group Control Messages
A group control message is any control message type that requests
some update to the list of newsgroups known to a news server. The
standard group control message types are "newgroup", "rmgroup", and
"checkgroups".
Before honoring any group control message, an agent MUST check the
newsgroup or newsgroups affected by that control message and decline
to create any newsgroups not in conformance with the restrictions in
Section 3.1.4 of [USEFOR].
All of the group control messages MUST have an Approved header field
(Section 3.2.1 of [USEFOR]). Group control messages without an
Approved header field SHOULD NOT be honored.
Group control messages affecting specific groups (newgroup and
rmgroup control messages, for example) SHOULD include the <newsgroup-
name> for the group or groups affected in their Newsgroups header
field. Other newsgroups MAY be included in the Newsgroups header
field so that the control message will reach more news servers, but
due to the special relaying rules for group control messages (see
Section 3.6) this is normally unnecessary and may be excessive.
5.2.1. The newgroup Control Message
The newgroup control message requests the specified group be created
or, if already existing, have its moderation status or description
changed. The syntax of its Control header field is:
control-command =/ Newgroup-command
Newgroup-command = "newgroup" Newgroup-arguments
Newgroup-arguments = 1*WSP newsgroup-name
[ 1*WSP newgroup-flag ]
newgroup-flag = "moderated"
If the request is honored, the moderation status of the group SHOULD
be set in accordance with the presence or absence of the <newgroup-
flag> "moderated". "moderated" is the only flag defined by this
protocol. Other flags MAY be defined by extensions to this protocol
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
and accepted by agents. If an agent does not recognize the
<newgroup-flag> of a newgroup control message, it SHOULD ignore that
control message.
The body of a newgroup message SHOULD contain an entity of type
application/news-groupinfo specifying the description of the
newsgroup, either as the entire body or as an entity within a
multipart/mixed object [RFC2046]. If such an entity is present, the
moderation status specified therein MUST match the moderation status
specified by the <newgroup-flag>. The body of a newgroup message MAY
contain other entities (encapsulated in multipart/mixed) that provide
additional information about the newsgroup or the circumstances of
the control message.
In the absence of an application/news-groupinfo entity, a news server
MAY search the body of the message for the line "For your newsgroups
file:" and take the following line as a <newsgroups-line>. Prior to
the standardization of application/news-groupinfo, this was the
convention for providing a newsgroup description.
If the request is honored and contains a newsgroup description, and
if the news server honoring it stores newsgroup descriptions, the
stored newsgroup description SHOULD be updated to the description
specified in the control message, even if no other property of the
group has changed.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
5.2.1.1. newgroup Control Message Example
A newgroup control message requesting creation of the moderated
newsgroup example.admin.info.
From: "example.* Administrator" <admin@noc.example>
Newsgroups: example.admin.info
Date: 27 Feb 2002 12:50:22 +0200
Subject: cmsg newgroup example.admin.info moderated
Approved: admin@noc.example
Control: newgroup example.admin.info moderated
Message-ID: <ng-example.admin.info-20020227@noc.example>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="nxtprt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
This is a MIME control message.
--nxtprt
Content-Type: application/news-groupinfo
For your newsgroups file:
example.admin.info About the example.* groups (Moderated)
--nxtprt
Content-Type: text/plain
A moderated newsgroup for announcements about new newsgroups in
the example.* hierarchy.
--nxtprt--
5.2.2. The rmgroup Control Message
The rmgroup control message requests the specified group be removed
from a news server's list of valid groups. The syntax of its Control
header field is:
control-command =/ Rmgroup-command
Rmgroup-command = "rmgroup" Rmgroup-arguments
Rmgroup-arguments = 1*WSP newsgroup-name
The body of the control message MAY contain anything, usually an
explanatory text.
5.2.3. The checkgroups Control Message
The checkgroups control message contains a list of all the valid
groups in a hierarchy with descriptions and moderation status. It
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
requests a news server update its valid newsgroup list for that
hierarchy to include the groups specified, remove any groups not
specified, and update group descriptions to match those given in the
checkgroups control message. The syntax of its Control header field
is:
control-command =/ Checkgroup-command
Checkgroup-command = "checkgroups" Checkgroup-arguments
Checkgroup-arguments= [ chkscope ] [ chksernr ]
chkscope = 1*( 1*WSP ["!"] newsgroup-name )
chksernr = 1*WSP "#" 1*DIGIT
A checkgroups message is interpreted as an exhaustive list of the
valid groups in all hierarchies or sub-hierarchies with a prefix
listed in the <chkscope> argument, excluding any sub-hierarchy where
the <chkscope> argument is prefixed by "!". If no <chkscope>
argument is given, it applies to all hierarchies for which group
statements appear in the body of the message. Since much existing
software does not honor the <chkscope> argument, the body of the
checkgroups control message MUST NOT contain group statements for
newsgroups outside the intended scope and SHOULD contain a correct
newsgroup list even for sub-hierarchies excluded with "!" <chkscope>
terms. News servers, however, MUST honor <chkscope> as specified
here.
The <chksernr> argument may be any positive integer. If present, it
MUST increase with every change to the newsgroup list and MUST NOT
ever decrease. If provided, news servers SHOULD remember the
<chksernr> value of the previous checkgroups control message honored
for a particular hierarchy or sub-hierarchy and decline to honor any
subsequent checkgroups control message for the same hierarchy or sub-
hierarchy with a smaller <chksernr> value.
For example, the following Control header field
Control: checkgroups de !de.alt #248
indicates the body of the message will list every newsgroup in the
de.* hierarchy, excepting the de.alt.* sub-hierarchy, and should not
be honored if a checkgroups control message with a serial number
greater than 248 was previously honored.
The body of the message is an entity of type application/
news-checkgroups. It SHOULD be declared as such with appropriate
MIME headers, but news servers SHOULD interpret checkgroups messages
that lack the appropriate MIME headers as if the body were of type
application/news-checkgroups for backward compatibility.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
5.3. The cancel Control Message
The cancel control message requests that a target article be
withdrawn from circulation and access. The syntax of its Control
header field is:
control-command =/ Cancel-command
Cancel-command = "cancel" Cancel-arguments
Cancel-arguments = 1*WSP msg-id
The argument identifies the article to be cancelled by its message
identifier. The body of the control message MAY contain anything,
usually an explanatory text.
A serving agent that elects to honor a cancel message SHOULD make the
article unavailable to reading agents (perhaps by deleting it
completely). If the cancel control message arrives before the
article it targets, news servers choosing to honor it SHOULD remember
the message identifier that was cancelled and reject the cancelled
article when it arrives.
To best ensure that it will be relayed to the same news servers as
the original message, a cancel control message SHOULD have the same
Newsgroups header field as the message it is cancelling.
Cancel control messages listing moderated newsgroups in their
Newsgroups header field MUST contain an Approved header field like
any other article in a moderated newsgroup. This means that cancels
posted to a moderated newsgroup will normally be sent to the
moderator first for approval. Outside of moderated newsgroups,
cancel messages are not required to contain an Approved header field.
Contrary to [RFC1036], cancel control messages are not required to
contain From and Sender header fields matching the target message.
This requirement only encouraged cancel issuers to conceal their
identity and provided no security.
5.4. The Supersedes Header Field
The presence of a Supersedes header field in an article requests that
the message identifier given in that header field be withdrawn in
exactly the same manner as if it were the target of a cancel control
message. Accordingly, news servers SHOULD use the same
authentication and authorization checks for deciding whether to honor
a Supersedes header field as they use for cancel control messages.
If the Supersedes header field is honored, the news server SHOULD
take the same actions as it would take when honoring a cancel control
message for the given target article.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
5.5. The ihave and sendme Control Messages
The ihave and sendme control messages implement a predecessor of the
NNTP [RFC3977] protocol. They are largely obsolete on the Internet
but still see use in conjunction with some transport protocols such
as UUCP. News servers are not required to support them.
ihave and sendme control messages share similar syntax for their
Control header fields and bodies:
control-command =/ Ihave-command
Ihave-command = "ihave" Ihave-arguments
Ihave-arguments = 1*WSP *( msg-id 1*WSP ) relayer-name
control-command =/ Sendme-command
Sendme-command = "sendme" Sendme-arguments
Sendme-arguments = Ihave-arguments
relayer-name = path-identity ; see 3.1.5 of [USEFOR]
ihave-body = *( msg-id CRLF )
sendme-body = ihave-body
The body of the article consists of a list of <msg-id>s, one per
line. The message identifiers SHOULD be put in the body of the
article, not in the Control header field, but news servers MAY
recognize and process message identifiers in the Control header field
for backward compatibility. Message identifiers MUST NOT be put in
the Control header field if they are present in the body of the
control message.
The ihave message states that the named relaying agent has received
articles with the specified message identifiers, which may be of
interest to the relaying agents receiving the ihave message. The
sendme message requests that the agent receiving it send the articles
having the specified message identifiers to the named relaying agent.
Contrary to [RFC1036], the relayer-name MUST be given as the last
argument in the Control header field.
Upon receipt of the sendme message (and a decision to honor it), the
receiving agent sends the article or articles requested. The
mechanism for this transmission is unspecified by this document and
is arranged between the sites involved.
These control messages are normally sent as point-to-point articles
between two sites and not then sent on to other sites. Newsgroups
beginning with "to." are reserved for such point-to-point
communications and are formed by prepending "to." to a <relayer-name>
to form a <newsgroup-name>. Articles with such a group in their
Newsgroups header fields SHOULD NOT be sent to any news server other
than the one identified by <relayer-name>.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
5.6. Obsolete Control Messages
The following control message types are declared obsolete by this
document and SHOULD NOT be sent or honored:
sendsys
version
whogets
senduuname
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
6. Security Considerations
Netnews is designed for broad dissemination of public messages and
offers little in the way of security. What protection Netnews has
against abuse and impersonation is provided primarily by the
underlying transport layer. In large Netnews networks where news
servers cannot be relied upon to enforce authentication and
authorization requirements at the transport layer, articles may be
trivially forged and widely read, and the identities of article
senders and privacy of articles cannot be assured.
See Section 5 of [USEFOR] for further security considerations related
to the format of articles.
6.1. Compromise of System Integrity
Control messages pose a particular security concern since acting on
unauthorized control messages may cause newsgroups to be removed,
articles to be deleted, and unwanted newsgroups to be created.
Administrators of news servers SHOULD therefore take steps to verify
the authenticity of control messages as discussed in Section 5.1.
Articles containing Supersedes header fields are effectively cancel
control messages and SHOULD be subject to the same checks as
discussed in Section 5.4. Currently, many sites are ignoring all
cancel control messages and Supersedes header fields due to the
difficulty of authenticating them and their widespread abuse.
Cancel control messages are not required to have the same Newsgroups
header field as the messages they are cancelling and, since they are
sometimes processed before the original message is received, it may
not be possible to check that they do. This allows a malicious
poster to inject a cancel control message for an article in a
moderated newsgroup without adding an Approved header field to the
control message, and to hide malicious cancel control messages from
some reading agents by using a different Newsgroups header field so
that the cancel control message is not accepted by all news servers
that accepted the original message.
All agents should be aware that all article content, most notably
including the content of the Control header field, is potentially
untrusted and malicious. Articles may be constructed in
syntactically invalid ways to attempt to overflow internal buffers,
violate hidden assumptions, or exploit implementation weaknesses.
For example, some news server implementations have been successfully
attacked via inclusion of Unix shell code in the Control header
field. All article contents, and particularly control message
contents, SHOULD be handled with care and rigorously verified before
any action is taken on the basis of the contents of the article.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
A malicious poster may add an Approved header field to bypass the
moderation process of a moderated newsgroup. Injecting agents SHOULD
verify that messages approved for a moderated newsgroup are being
injected by the moderator using authentication information from the
underlying transport or some other authentication mechanism arranged
with the moderator.
A malicious news server participating in a Netnews network may bypass
checks performed by injecting agents, forge Path header fields and
other trace information (such as Injection-Info header fields), and
otherwise compromise the authorization requirements of a Netnews
network. News servers SHOULD use the facilities of the underlying
transport to authenticate their peers and reject articles from
injecting and relaying agents that do not follow the requirements of
this protocol or the Netnews network.
6.2. Denial of Service
The proper functioning of individual newsgroups can be disrupted by
the excessive posting of unwanted articles; by the repeated posting
of identical or near identical articles; by posting followups
unrelated to their precursors or which quote their precursors in full
with the addition of minimal extra material (especially if this
process is iterated); by crossposting to, or requesting followups to,
totally unrelated newsgroups; and by abusing control messages and the
Supersedes header field to delete articles or newsgroups.
Such articles intended to deny service, or other articles of an
inflammatory nature, may also have their From or Reply-To addresses
set to valid but incorrect email addresses, thus causing large
volumes of email to descend on the true owners of those addresses.
Users and agents should always be aware that identifying information
in articles may be forged.
A malicious poster may prevent an article from being seen at a
particular site by including in the Path header field of the proto-
article the <path-identity> of that site. Use of the <diag-keyword>
"POSTED" by injecting agents to mark the point of injection can
prevent this attack.
Primary responsibility for preventing such attacks lies with
injecting agents, which can apply authentication and authorization
checks via the underlying transport and prevent those attempting
denial of service attacks from posting messages. If specific
injecting agents fail to live up to their responsibilities, they may
be excluded from the Netnews network by configuring relaying agents
to reject articles originating from them.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
A malicious complainer may submit a modified copy of an article (with
an altered Injection-Info header field, for instance) to the
administrator of an injecting agent in an attempt to discredit the
author of that article and even to have his posting privileges
removed. Administrators SHOULD therefore obtain a genuine copy of
the article from their own serving agent before taking action in
response to such a complaint.
6.3. Leakage
Articles which are intended to have restricted distribution are
dependent on the goodwill of every site receiving them. Restrictions
on dissemination and retention of articles may be requested via the
Archive and Distribution header fields, but such requests cannot be
enforced by the protocol.
The flooding algorithm used by Netnews transports such as NNTP
[RFC3977] is extremely good at finding any path by which articles can
leave a subnet with supposedly restrictive boundaries, and
substantial administrative effort is required to avoid this.
Organizations wishing to control such leakage are advised to
designate a small number of gateways to handle all news exchange with
the outside world.
The sendme control message (Section 5.5), insofar as it is still
used, can be used to request articles the requester should not have
access to.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to register the following media types, described
elsewhere in this document, for use with the Content-Type header
field, in the IETF tree in accordance with the procedures set out in
[RFC4288].
application/news-transmission (4.1)
application/news-groupinfo (4.2)
application/news-checkgroups (4.3)
application/news-transmission is a change to a previous registration.
IANA is also requested to change the status of the message/news media
type to "OBSOLETE". message/rfc822 should be used instead. An
updated template is included in Section 4.
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[ASCII] American National Standard for Information Systems, "Coded
Character Sets - 7-Bit American National Standard Code for
Information Interchange (7-Bit ASCII)", ANSI X3.4, 1986.
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
November 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822,
April 2001.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC4288] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Media Type Specifications and
Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4288, December 2005.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[USEFOR] Murchison, K., Ed., Lindsey, C., and D. Kohn, "Netnews
Article Format", draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-12 (work in
progress),
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-usefor-12>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC0976] Horton, M., "UUCP mail interchange format standard",
RFC 976, February 1986.
[RFC1036] Horton, M. and R. Adams, "Standard for interchange of
USENET messages", RFC 1036, December 1987.
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[RFC2606] Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.
[RFC3798] Hansen, T. and G. Vaudreuil, "Message Disposition
Allbery & Lindsey Expires February 28, 2009 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Netnews Architecture and Protocols August 2008
Notification", RFC 3798, May 2004.
[RFC3977] Feather, C., "Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP)",
