Internet DRAFT - draft-kularski-spam-spamreduce
draft-kularski-spam-spamreduce
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft C. Kularski
Expires: June 2004 Highland School
of Technology
Category: Informational January 2004
Compound Procedures for SPAM Control
draft-kularski-spam-spamreduce-06.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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.
Abstract
This document gives instructions for implementing a mail system that
will reduce the amount of SPAM received by the end users. The
instructions specify disposable and single-purpose mailboxes that
will allow for the source of SPAM to be easily identified.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [i].
KULARSKI Expires û March 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Compound SPAM Control Procedure January 2004
1. Introduction
The procedures outlined in this document require an SMTP
implementation that is capable of handling custom addressing
schemes required by this document. The SMTP service itself should
remain in compliance with all standards and specifications.
This document is NOT a guaranteed solution to SPAM, as of this
documentÆs creation no technology existed that would eliminate
SPAM completely. This document contains possible solutions that
can reduce SPAM, if you are creative with implementing the
solutions you will be more successful in reducing SPAM.
2. Address Structuring Considerations
The procedures in this document are easiest to implement using a
sub-domain for each user, such as "user.example.net". The sub-
domain SHOULD NOT be defined explicitly, it should be assigned as
a wildcard (*) Mail Exchanger RR. If you have a large number of
users it will be more efficient to use the dotted or hyphened
nomenclature specified in item 3.
3. To avoid DNS issues completely you can use a dotted (.) or
hyphenated naming structure before the "at" (@) symbol. The more
creative you are with the design of your address schema the fewer
SPAM messages your domain is likely to receive.
4. Email Addresses
There are three main classifications of email address which must
be defined.
Addresses for Automated and Non-Trusted Sources û This set of
addresses is defined by the user. There MUST be a way for the user
to easily change his/her list of available addresses quickly and
easily. The user will need the ability to add and delete addresses
from the list. The user will assign a unique address to each non-
trusted email source. If the source misuses the address, then the
address can be disposed of by deleting it from the list. Mail
received by these addresses should be deposited in the userÆs
primary mailbox. If a user needs an excessive amount of non-
trusted source address a wildcard address can be used for this
purpose (with the ability to kill abused addresses), but it is not
recommended.
Address for Personal Communication û The address for personal
communication is a single email address defined by either the user
or the administrator. This address will most likely be the one
used as the primary mailbox for the user. The user should give
this address only to human sources that are unlikely to spread the
address. This address is optional.
KULARSKI Expires - June 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Compound SPAM Control Procedure January 2004
Addresses for Common Services, Roles and Functions û Addresses
defined by RFC 2142[ii] should be directed to the mailbox of the
appropriate function on the primary domain (example:
abuse@user.example.net is delivered to abuse@example.net).
5. Considerations for Each Address Type
Each address type has its own special needs for them to be used to
their full potential and to allow the least amount of SPAM in.
Addresses for Automated and Non-Trusted Sources û These addresses
MUST be unique to each source. Mail for these addresses can be
filtered to add an additional level of SPAM elimination, but the
nature of these addresses will significantly reduce the amount of
SPAM received.
Address for Personal Communication û This address should be
protected in several ways. First, the address should not be widely
distributed and should NEVER be used for newsgroups, web pages or
any purpose where it will be publicly viewable. Additionally the
mailbox SHOULD use a whitelist (and blacklist) system to authorize
senders. Score-based SPAM detection systems can also be reliable
in "weeding out" SPAM from this box. Failing to adequately protect
this address will defeat the purpose of this document.
Addresses for Common Roles, Services and Functions û due to the
nature of these addresses they should not be extremely
restrictive, but due to the nature of SPAM attacks some protection
is advisable.
6. Possible Special Addresses
In addition to the addresses for non-trusted sources temporary
addresses that expire after a certain amount of time has elapsed
can be used for situations where SPAM is imminent, such as
newsgroup communication.
7. Address Examples
Sub-domain Non-trusted source û source@user.example.net
Dotted-user Non-trusted source û source.user@example.net
Hyphened-user Non-trusted source û source-user@example.net
Sub-domain Personal û user@user.example.net
Dotted (or Hyphened) Personal û user@example.net
Security Considerations
The information in this document introduces no Security Concerns.
References
KULARSKI Expires - June 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Compound SPAM Control Procedure January 2004
i Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997
ii Crocker, D., "Mailbox Names for Common Roles, Services and
Functions", RFC 2142, May 1997
Author's Addresses
Curtis M. Kularski
219 Best St
Bessemer City, NC 28016-9330
United States
Phone: +1 (704) 629-2498
Email: spamreducedraft@curtis.kularski.us
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
KULARSKI Expires - June 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Compound SPAM Control Procedure January 2004
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
KULARSKI Expires - June 2004 [Page 5]
