Subject: [marf] Including Mail fields in IODEF

From: "Moriarty, Kathleen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 05:19:11 -0500

Hello,

Cross posting with MAIL and MARF - 

In MILE related work, I have come across use cases that would like to include DKIM and SPF information in addition to specific mail fields (like the ones Chris lists below).  We would like some help to figure out the best approach.  Should we embed ARF and MARF RFC extensions to accommodate this need or should we look at updating RFC5901?  Both take the approach of including an email message as opposed to using XML to tag each field and allow for this in the data model (in my opinion, that is fine and reduces bloat, but there may be other opinions).

There was a draft published last year (link included below) that includes MARF in an IODE extension.

Thanks,
Kathleen
________________________________________
From: Harrington, Christopher
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:57 PM
To: Moriarty, Kathleen; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Mail fields

I'm for the simplest solution as always. These are the indicator types that
we routinely share. I would use these as a base:

Email address (denoting if it is to or from)
Email Subject
Email attachment name
Email attachment hash
X-Mailer (from header)
Hyperlink in email

It's also very common to share the whole header. Bad guys routinely forge
them and put extra header items that can be used as indicators.  Although
not an indicator sharing the entire email as an .eml or .msg file is also
pretty common.

Thanks,

--Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Moriarty, Kathleen
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:58 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [mile] Mail fields

Hi,

In looking at the updated rfc5070bis and coming across some requests for
handling certain types of exchanges, I am curious to hear how others think
we should handle mail related indicators and incidents.  A couple of
commonly exchanged fields were added into the Record class.  You can still
extend out using RFC5901 and include a full mail message, but if you wanted
to include DKIM or Sender Policy Framework, you need something else.  The
IETF group MARF already solved these issues.

MARF uses the email tags rather than XML and there was a draft that embedded
MARF content into IODEF (contains an example), can be found here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vesely-mile-mail-abuse-00

Since mail is already marked and can be parsed, would this be a better
option to use what MARF has already done to solve the question on how to
exchange this data?  Other options would be to update RFC5901 or to extend
IODEF further.  I prefer the use of MARF.  It is already in use by mail
operators, so there is adoption.

Thanks,
Kathleen
_______________________________________________
mile mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile

---

From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:30:41 -0500

In <[email-masked]>, on
02/21/2013
   at 05:19 AM, "Moriarty, Kathleen" <[email-masked]> said:

>Should we embed ARF and MARF RFC extensions to accommodate this need
>or should we look at updating RFC5901?

Note that RFC 5965 et al establish IANA registries; those are the
preferred mechanism for extensions. Where you need an extension beyond
what can be done with the existing registries, you should consider
establishing new registries to simplify future extensions beyond what
you initially devise.

-- 
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
     Atid/2        <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:56:43 +0100

Hi Kathleen,

> Cross posting with MAIL and MARF - 

Hey, I never realized that meaning of pronouncing "mile", otherwise I
wouldn't have unsubscribed :-)

> There was a draft published last year (link included below) that
> includes MARF in an IODEF extension.

Yeah, that slavishly translated and ARF mail into XML.  Its only
practical trait is to represent header fields with a lowercase name,
for example:

 <arf:Field name="x-mailer">QUALCOMM Windows Eudora</arf:Field>

That kind of thing can be useful to get a value quickly; that is,
while parsing the XML.  If the alternative is to extract the whole
message (or header) and then parse that in turn, it might be worth to
have it.