+ARC support
+-----------
+Specification: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-11
+Note that this is not an RFC yet, so may change.
+
+ARC is intended to support the utility of SPF and DKIM in the presence of
+intermediaries in the transmission path - forwarders and mailinglists -
+by establishing a cryptographically-signed chain in headers.
+
+Normally one would only bother doing ARC-signing when functioning as
+an intermediary. One might do verify for local destinations.
+
+ARC uses the notion of a "ADministrative Management Domain" (ADMD).
+Described in RFC 5598 (section 2.3), this is essentially the set of
+mail-handling systems that the mail transits. A label should be chosen to
+identify the ADMD. Messages should be ARC-verified on entry to the ADMD,
+and ARC-signed on exit from it.
+
+
+Verification
+--
+An ACL condition is provided to perform the "verifier actions" detailed
+in section 6 of the above specification. It may be called from the DATA ACL
+and succeeds if the result matches any of a given list.
+It also records the highest ARC instance number (the chain size)
+and verification result for later use in creating an Authentication-Results:
+standard header.
+
+ verify = arc/<acceptable_list> none:fail:pass
+
+ add_header = :at_start:${authresults {<admd-identifier>}}
+
+ Note that it would be wise to strip incoming messages of A-R headers
+ that claim to be from our own <admd-identifier>.
+
+There are three new variables: $arc_state, $arc_state_reason, $arc_domains:
+
+ $arc_state One of pass, fail, none
+ $arc_state_reason (if fail, why)
+ $arc_domains colon-sep list of ARC chain domains, in chain order.
+ problematic elements may have empty list elements
+ $arc_oldest_pass lowest passing instance number of chain
+
+Example:
+ logwrite = oldest-p-ams: <${reduce {$lh_ARC-Authentication-Results:} \
+ {} \
+ {${if = {$arc_oldest_pass} \
+ {${extract {i}{${extract {1}{;}{$item}}}}} \
+ {$item} {$value}}} \
+ }>
+
+Receive log lines for an ARC pass will be tagged "ARC".
+
+
+Signing
+--
+arc_sign = <admd-identifier> : <selector> : <privkey> [ : <options> ]
+An option on the smtp transport, which constructs and prepends to the message
+an ARC set of headers. The textually-first Authentication-Results: header
+is used as a basis (you must have added one on entry to the ADMD).
+Expanded as a whole; if unset, empty or forced-failure then no signing is done.
+If it is set, all of the first three elements must be non-empty.
+
+The fourth element is optional, and if present consists of a comma-separated list
+of options. The options implemented are
+
+ timestamps Add a t= tag to the generated AMS and AS headers, with the
+ current time.
+ expire[=<val>] Add an x= tag to the generated AMS header, with an expiry time.
+ If the value <val> is an plain number it is used unchanged.
+ If it starts with a '+' then the following number is added
+ to the current time, as an offset in seconds.
+ If a value is not given it defaults to a one month offset.
+
+[As of writing, gmail insist that a t= tag on the AS is mandatory]
+
+Caveats:
+ * There must be an Authentication-Results header, presumably added by an ACL
+ while receiving the message, for the same ADMD, for arc_sign to succeed.
+ This requires careful coordination between inbound and outbound logic.
+
+ Only one A-R header is taken account of. This is a limitation versus
+ the ARC spec (which says that all A-R headers from within the ADMD must
+ be used).
+
+ * If passing a message to another system, such as a mailing-list manager
+ (MLM), between receipt and sending, be wary of manipulations to headers made
+ by the MLM.
+ + For instance, Mailman with REMOVE_DKIM_HEADERS==3 might improve
+ deliverability in a pre-ARC world, but that option also renames the
+ Authentication-Results header, which breaks signing.
+
+ * Even if you use multiple DKIM keys for different domains, the ARC concept
+ should try to stick to one ADMD, so pick a primary domain and use that for
+ AR headers and outbound signing.
+
+Signing is not compatible with cutthrough delivery; any (before expansion)
+value set for the option will result in cutthrough delivery not being
+used via the transport in question.
+
+
+
+
+REQUIRETLS support
+------------------
+Ref: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-uta-smtp-require-tls-03
+
+If compiled with EXPERIMENTAL_REQUIRETLS support is included for this
+feature, where a REQUIRETLS option is added to the MAIL command.
+The client may not retry in clear if the MAIL+REQUIRETLS fails (or was never
+offered), and the server accepts an obligation that any onward transmission
+by SMTP of the messages accepted will also use REQUIRETLS - or generate a
+fail DSN.
+
+The Exim implementation includes
+- a main-part option tls_advertise_requiretls; host list, default "*"
+- an observability variable $requiretls returning yes/no
+- an ACL "control = requiretls" modifier for setting the requirement
+- Log lines and Received: headers capitalise the S in the protocol
+ element: "P=esmtpS"
+
+Differences from spec:
+- we support upgrading the requirement for REQUIRETLS, including adding
+ it from cold, within an MTA. The spec only define the sourcing MUA
+ as being able to source the requirement, and makes no mention of upgrade.
+- No support is coded for the RequireTLS header (which can be used
+ to annul DANE and/or STS policiy). [this can _almost_ be done in
+ transport option expansions, but not quite: it requires tha DANE-present
+ but STARTTLS-failing targets fallback to cleartext, which current DANE
+ coding specifically blocks]
+
+Note that REQUIRETLS is only advertised once a TLS connection is achieved
+(in contrast to STARTTLS). If you want to check the advertising, do something
+like "swaks -s 127.0.0.1 -tls -q HELO".
+
+
git://git.exim.org / exim.git / blobdiff