+DSN Support
+--------------------------------------------------------------
+
+DSN Support tries to add RFC 3461 support to Exim. It adds support for
+*) the additional parameters for MAIL FROM and RCPT TO
+*) RFC complient MIME DSN messages for all of
+ success, failure and delay notifications
+*) dsn_advertise_hosts main option to select which hosts are able
+ to use the extension
+*) dsn_lasthop router switch to end DSN processing
+
+In case of failure reports this means that the last three parts, the message body
+intro, size info and final text, of the defined template are ignored since there is no
+logical place to put them in the MIME message.
+
+All the other changes are made without changing any defaults
+
+Building exim:
+--------------
+
+Define
+EXPERIMENTAL_DSN=YES
+in your Local/Makefile.
+
+Configuration:
+--------------
+All DSNs are sent in MIME format if you built exim with EXPERIMENTAL_DSN=YES
+No option needed to activate it, and no way to turn it off.
+
+Failure and delay DSNs are triggered as usual except a sender used NOTIFY=...
+to prevent them.
+
+Support for Success DSNs is added and activated by NOTIFY=SUCCESS by clients.
+
+Add
+dsn_advertise_hosts = *
+or a more restrictive host_list to announce DSN in EHLO answers
+
+Those hosts can then use NOTIFY,ENVID,RET,ORCPT options.
+
+If a message is relayed to a DSN aware host without changing the envelope
+recipient the options are passed along and no success DSN is generated.
+
+A redirect router will always trigger a success DSN if requested and the DSN
+options are not passed any further.
+
+A success DSN always contains the recipient address as submitted by the
+client as required by RFC. Rewritten addresses are never exposed.
+
+If you used DSN patch up to 1.3 before remove all "dsn_process" switches from
+your routers since you don't need them anymore. There is no way to "gag"
+success DSNs anymore. Announcing DSN means answering as requested.
+
+You can prevent Exim from passing DSN options along to other DSN aware hosts by defining
+dsn_lasthop
+in a router. Exim will then send the success DSN himself if requested as if
+the next hop does not support DSN.
+Adding it to a redirect router makes no difference.
+
+
+Certificate name checking
+--------------------------------------------------------------
+The X509 certificates used for TLS are supposed be verified
+that they are owned by the expected host. The coding of TLS
+support to date has not made these checks.
+
+If built with EXPERIMENTAL_CERTNAMES defined, code is
+included to do so, and a new smtp transport option
+"tls_verify_cert_hostname" supported which takes a list of
+names for which the checks must be made. The host must
+also be in "tls_verify_hosts".
+
+Both Subject and Subject-Alternate-Name certificate fields
+are supported, as are wildcard certificates (limited to
+a single wildcard being the initial component of a 3-or-more
+component FQDN).
+
+
+DANE
+------------------------------------------------------------
+DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities, as applied
+to SMTP over TLS, provides assurance to a client that
+it is actually talking to the server it wants to rather
+than some attacker operating a Man In The Middle (MITM)
+operation. The latter can terminate the TLS connection
+you make, and make another one to the server (so both
+you and the server still think you have an encrypted
+connection) and, if one of the "well known" set of
+Certificate Authorities has been suborned - something
+which *has* been seen already (2014), a verifiable
+certificate (if you're using normal root CAs, eg. the
+Mozilla set, as your trust anchors).
+
+What DANE does is replace the CAs with the DNS as the
+trust anchor. The assurance is limited to a) the possibility
+that the DNS has been suborned, b) mistakes made by the
+admins of the target server. The attack surface presented
+by (a) is thought to be smaller than that of the set
+of root CAs.
+
+DANE scales better than having to maintain (and
+side-channel communicate) copies of server certificates
+for every possible target server. It also scales
+(slightly) better than having to maintain on an SMTP
+client a copy of the standard CAs bundle. It also
+means not having to pay a CA for certificates.
+
+DANE requires a server operator to do three things:
+1) run DNSSEC. This provides assurance to clients
+that DNS lookups they do for the server have not
+been tampered with.
+2) add TLSA DNS records. These say what the server
+certificate for a TLS connection should be.
+3) offer a server certificate, or certificate chain,
+in TLS connections which is traceable to the one
+defined by (one of?) the TSLA records
+
+There are no changes to Exim specific to server-side
+operation of DANE.
+
+The TLSA record for the server may have "certificate
+usage" of DANE_TA(2) or DANE_EE(3). The latter specifies
+the End Entity directly, i.e. the certificate involved
+is that of the server (and should be the sole one transmitted
+during the TLS handshake); this is appropriate for a
+single system, using a self-signed certificate.
+ DANE_TA usage is effectively declaring a specific CA
+to be used; this might be a private CA or a public,
+well-known one. A private CA at simplest is just
+a self-signed certificate which is used to sign
+cerver certificates, but running one securely does
+require careful arrangement. If a private CA is used
+then either all clients must be primed with it, or
+(probably simpler) the server TLS handshake must transmit
+the entire certificate chain from CA to server-certificate.
+If a public CA is used then all clients must be primed with it
+(losing one advantage of DANE) - but the attack surface is
+reduced from all public CAs to that single CA.
+DANE_TA is commonly used for several services and/or
+servers, each having a TLSA query-domain CNAME record,
+all of which point to a single TLSA record.
+
+The TLSA record should have a Selector field of SPKI(1)
+and a Matching Type fiels of SHA2-512(2).
+
+For use with the DANE_TA model, server certificates
+must have a correct name (SubjectName or SubjectAltName).
+
+The use of OCSP-stapling should be considered, allowing
+for fast revocation of certificates (which would otherwise
+be limited by the DNS TTL on the TLSA records).
+
+
+For client-side DANE there is a new smtp transport option,
+hosts_try_dane. It does the obvious thing.
+[ may add a hosts_require_dane, too? ]
+[ should it be domain-based rather than host-based? ]
+
+DANE will only be usable if the target host has DNSSEC-secured
+MX, A and TLSA records.
+
+(TODO: specify when fallback happens vs. when the host is not used)
+
+If dane is in use the following transport options are ignored:
+ tls_verify_hosts
+ tls_try_verify_hosts
+ tls_verify_certificates
+ tls_crl
+ tls_verify_cert_hostnames
+ hosts_require_ocsp (might rethink those two)
+ hosts_request_ocsp
+
+Currently dnssec_request_domains must be active (need to think about that)
+and dnssec_require_domains is ignored.
+
git://git.exim.org / users / heiko / exim.git / blobdiff