| Internet-Draft | SMTPUTF8 address syntax | September 2024 |
| Gulbrandsen & Yao | Expires 22 March 2025 | [Page] |
This document specifies rules for email addresses that are flexible enough to express the addresses typically used with SMTPUTF8, while avoiding confusing or risky elements.¶
This is one of a pair of documents: This is simple to implement, contains only globally viable rules and is intended to be usable for software such an MTA. Its companion defines has more complex rules, takes regional usage into account and aims to allow only addresses that are readable and cut-and-pastable to some audience.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
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."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 22 March 2025.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
[RFC6530]-[RFC6533] and [RFC6854]-[RFC6858] extend various aspects of the email system to support non-ASCII both in localparts and domain parts. In addition, some email software supports unicode in domain parts by using encoded domain parts in the SMTP transaction ("RCPT TO:[email protected]") and presenting the unicode version (dømi.fo in this case) in the user interface.¶
The email address syntax extension is in [RFC6532], and allows almost all UTF8 strings as localparts. While this certainly allows everything users want to use, it is also flexible enought to allow many things that users and implementers find surprising and sometimes worrying.¶
The flexibility has caused considerable reluctance to support the full syntax in contexts such as web form address validation.¶
This document attempts to describe rules that:¶
includes the addresses that users generally want to use for themselves and organizations want to provision for their employees.¶
excludes things that have been described as security risks.¶
Looks safe at first glance to implementers (including ones with little unicode expertise) and are fairly easy to use in unit tests.¶
Contain no regional rules.¶
These goals are somewhat aspirational.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
Script, in this document, refers to the unicode script property (see [UAX24]). Each code point is assigned to one script ("a" is Latin), except that some are assigned to "Common" or a few other special values. Fraktur and /etc/rc.local aren't scripts in this document, but Latin is.¶
Latin refers those code points that have the script property "Latin" in Unicode. Orléans in France and Münster in Germany both have Latin names in this document. It also refers to combinations of those code points and combining characters, and to strings that contain no code points from other scripts.¶
Han, Cyrillic etc. refer to those code points that have the respective script property in Unicode, as well as to strings that contain no code points from other scripts.¶
ASCII refers to the first 128 code points within unicode, which includes the letters A-Z but not É or Ü. It also refers to strings that contain only ASCII code points.¶
Non-ASCII refers to unicode code points except the first 128, and also to strings that contain at least one such code point.¶
By way of example, the address info@dømi.fo is latin and non-ASCII, its localpart is latin and ASCII, and its domain part is latin and non-ASCII. 中国 is a Han string in this document, but 阿Q正传 is neither a Latin string nor a Han string, because it contains a Latin Q and three Han code points.¶
Based on the above goals, the following rules are formulated:¶
An address MUST NOT contain an a-label (e.g. xn--dmi-0na).¶
An address MUST contain only code points in the PRECIS IdentifierClass.¶
An address MUST consist entirely of a sequence of composite characters, ZWJ and ZWNJ. ("c" followed by "combining hook below" is an example of a composite character, "d" is another example; see [RFC6365] for the definition.)¶
An address MOT NOT contain more than one script, disregarding ASCII. (Disregarding ASCII, the word Orléans contains only an é, which is one script, namely Latin.)¶
[email protected] is legal, because 1) it does not contain any a-label, 2) it consists entirely of permissible code points, 4) it consists of 19 composite characters, and 4) it contains no non-ASCII code points at all.¶
The address dømi@dømi.fo is nice, because 1) it does not contain any a-label, 2) does not apply, 3) it consists entirely of permissible code points, 4) it consists of 12 composite characters, 5) does not apply and 6) it consists entirely of 'Latin' and 'Common' code points (and ./@).¶
The address U+200E '@' U+200F '.' U+200E is not nice, because 4) U+200E and U+200F are not parts of composite characters.¶
阿Q正传@阿Q正传.example is legal because it contains ASCII and Han, dømi@dømi.fo is legal because it contains ASCII and Latin, but 阿Q正传@dømi.fo is illegal becasue it contains Han 阿 and the Latin non-ASCII letter ø.¶
TODO: add more examples and rationales again.¶
This document does not require any actions from the IANA.¶
When a program renders a unicode string on-screen or audibly and includes a substring supplied by a potentially malevolent source, the included substring can affect the rendering of a surprisingly large part of the overall string.¶
This document describes rules that make it difficult for an attacker to use email addresses for such an attack. Implementers should be aware of other possible vectors for the same kind of attack, such as subject fields and email address display-names.¶
If an address is signed using DKIM and (against the rules of this document) mixes left-to-right and right-to-left writing, parts of both the localpart and the domain part can be rendered on the same side of the '@'. This can create the appearance that a different domain signed the message.¶
The rules in this document permit a number of code points that can make it difficult to cut and paste.¶
The authors wish to thank John C. Klensin, [your name here, please] [oh wow, the ack section is already outdated]¶
Dømi.fo and 例子.中国 are reserved by nic.fo and CNNIC for use in examples and documentation.¶
阿Q正传@ is a famous Chinese novella, 阿Q is the main character.¶
Please remove all mentions of the Protocol Police before publication (including this sentence).¶
Please remove the Open Issues section.¶
PRECIS IdentifierClass?¶
More examples.¶
Wording to identify destiny; I think this should probably become a proposed standard and modify a couple of RFCs, but I'm uncertain about some details and left that open now.¶
More words on the relationship between this and the companion. There are several parallel differences, maybe this warrants a section of its own.¶
Should this even mention the requirements placed on domains by IDNA, ICANN, web browsers and others?¶