Internet Draft F. Gennai
Intended status: Standards track A. Shahin
Expires: August 8, 2009 ISTI-CNR
C. Petrucci
A. Vinciarelli
CNIPA
February 4, 2009
Certified Electronic Mail
draft-gennai-smime-cnipa-pec-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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/1id-abstracts.html.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 8, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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
(http://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.
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
Abstract
Since 1997, the Italian Laws have recognized electronic delivery
systems as legally usable. After 2 years of technical tests, in 2005
the characteristics of an official electronic delivery service,
named certified electronic mail (in Italian "Posta Elettronica
Certificata") were defined, giving the system legal value.
Design of the entire system was carried out by the National Center
for Informatics in the Public Administration of Italy (CNIPA),
followed by efforts for the implementation and testing of the
service. The CNIPA has given the Italian National Research Council
(CNR), and in particular The Institute of Information Science and
Technologies at the CNR (ISTI), the task of running tests on
providers of the service to guarantee the correct implementation and
interoperability. This document describes the certified email system
adopted in Italy. It represents the system as it is at the moment of
writing, following the technical regulations that were written based
upon the Italian Law DPR. November 2, 2005.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 4
1.1. Scope .................................................. 4
1.2. Notational Conventions ................................. 5
2. PEC model ................................................... 9
2.1. System-generated messages .............................. 9
2.1.1. Message types ..................................... 11
2.2. Basic structure ........................................ 14
2.2.1. Access point ...................................... 14
2.2.2. Incoming point .................................... 16
2.2.3. Delivery point .................................... 18
2.2.4. Storage ........................................... 19
2.2.5. Provider service mailbox .......................... 19
2.3. Log .................................................... 19
3. Message processing .......................................... 20
3.1. Access point ........................................... 20
3.1.1. Formal checks on messages ......................... 20
3.1.2. Non-acceptance notification due to one or more formal
exceptions ........................................ 20
3.1.3. Non-acceptance notification due to virus .......... 21
3.1.4. Acceptance notification ........................... 22
3.1.5. Transport envelope ................................ 23
3.1.6. Timeout delivery error notification ............... 24
3.2. Incoming point ......................................... 26
3.2.1. Take in charge notification ....................... 26
3.2.2. Anomaly envelope .................................. 27
3.2.3. Virus detection notification ...................... 28
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
3.2.4. Virus-induced delivery error notification ......... 29
3.3. Delivery point ......................................... 30
3.3.1. Checks on incoming messages ....................... 30
3.3.2. Delivery notification ............................. 30
3.3.3. Non-delivery notification ......................... 35
4. Formats ..................................................... 35
4.1. Temporal reference ..................................... 35
4.2. User date/time ......................................... 36
4.3. Attachments ............................................ 36
4.4. Certification data scheme .............................. 37
4.5. PEC providers directory scheme ......................... 39
5. Example: Complete transaction between 2 PEC domains ......... 46
6. Security-related aspects .................................... 47
6.1. Digital signature ...................................... 47
6.2. Authentication ......................................... 47
6.3. Secure interaction ..................................... 48
6.4. Virus .................................................. 48
6.5. S/MIME certificate ..................................... 49
6.6. PEC providers directory ................................ 54
7. PEC system client technical and functional prerequisites .... 55
8. Security Considerations ..................................... 55
9. IANA Considerations ......................................... 55
10. References ................................................. 56
10.1. Normative References .................................. 56
11. Acknowledgments ............................................ 57
APPENDIX A: Italian fields and values in English ............... 58
Authors' Addresses ............................................. 59
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
1. Introduction
Since 1997, the Italian Laws have recognized electronic delivery
systems as legally usable. After 2 years of technical tests, in 2005
the characteristics of an official electronic delivery service,
named certified electronic mail (in Italian Posta Elettronica
Certificata, from now on "PEC") were defined, giving the system
legal value.
1.1. Scope
To ensure secure transactions over the Internet, cryptography can be
associated with electronic messages in order to provide some
guarantee on sender identity, message integrity, confidentiality,
and non-repudiation of origin. Many end-to-end techniques exist to
accomplish such goals. But, even though end-to-end cryptography
offers a high level of security, it has a downside; the need for an
extensive penetration of technology in the society, since it would
be essential for every user to have a couple of symmetric keys and a
certificate, signed by a Certification Authority, associated with
the public key. Along with that, users would need to have an
adequate amount of knowledge regarding the use of such technology.
PEC on the other hand offers the digital signing of messages through
applications running directly on the servers, thus avoiding the
complexity end-to-end systems bring about. By doing so, the user
needs only have an ordinary mail client with which to interact. The
downside is that the level of security drops, since the protection
does not cover the entire transaction. Nonetheless, application is
simpler and does not require specific user skills, making it easily
more widespread among users.
A provider for such a service must follow certain regulations and
undergo several tests of compatibility and interoperability before
it can be considered legally functional.
This document describes PEC's Technical Regulations and
functionality. It presents the details of the protocol and the
messages that are sent between service providers. It is meant to be
an introduction to the system the Italian government has adopted for
the sending and receiving of certified emails, giving them a legal
value equivalent to that of Registered Mail with Return Receipt.
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
1.2. Notational Conventions
1.2.1. Requirement Conventions
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 [REQ].
1.2.2. Acronyms
CMS: Cryptographic Message Syntax
CNIPA: National Center for Informatics in the Public
Administration of Italy (Centro Nazionale per l'Informatica
nella Pubblica Amministrazione)
CNR: Italian National Research Council (Consiglio Nazionale
delle Ricerche)
CRL: Certificate Revocation List
CRL DP: Certificate Revocation List Distribution Point
DNS: Domain Name Service
DTD: Document Type Definition
FQDN: Fully Qualified Domain Name
ISTI: The Institute of Information Science and Technologies at
the CNR (Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione
"A.Faedo")
LDAP: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
LDIF: LDAP Data Interchange Format
MIME: Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
PEC: Certified Electronic Mail (Posta Elettronica Certificata)
S/MIME: Secure/MIME
SMTP: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
TLS: Transport Layer Security
XML: eXtensible Markup Language
1.2.3. Terminology and Definitions
Acceptance notification: Emitted by the sending access point to its
user upon the latter's request to send a PEC message. This occurs
when checks on said message go smoothly, and serves to notify the
user that the provider will be taking care of sending the PEC
message to its intended destination(s). It contains certification
data and is signed using the sender PEC provider's key.
Access point: Is what interfaces the user to the rest of the PEC
system. It provides access services for user identification, as well
as sending and reading PEC messages. An access point also performs
virus checks (on outgoing messages), and inserts the original
message into a transport envelope. The messages it can emit are:
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
o acceptance notifications.
o non-acceptance notifications, either due to some formal exception
or virus presence.
Anomaly envelope: When a message contains errors or is not a PEC
message it MUST be inserted inside an anomaly envelope to highlight
the irregularity to the receiving user. The envelope is signed using
the receiver PEC provider's key.
Brief delivery notification: A type of delivery notification that
contains the original message, certification data, and hash values
of the attachments that were included in the original message, if
any.
Certification data: A set of data, certified by the sender's PEC
provider, that describes the original message. This data is inserted
in notifications and is transferred to the recipient, along with the
original message, inside a transport envelope. Certification data
include: date and time of dispatch, sender email address,
recipient(s) email address(es), subject, and message ID.
Certified electronic mail: A service based on electronic mail, as
defined by the [SMTP] standard and its extensions, which permits the
transmission of documents produced with informatics tools.
Complete delivery notification: A type of notification that contains
delivery confirmation text and certification data, as well as the
entire original message.
Concise delivery notification: A type of notification that contains
delivery confirmation text and certification data only attached to
it.
Delivery point: Is the point that delivers PEC messages to the
intended recipient's PEC mailbox. It also runs checks on the source
and correctness of the message. The messages it can emit are:
o delivery notification.
o non-delivery notification.
All messages received by the delivery point are stored in the
recipient's mailbox.
Delivery notification: Emitted by the receiver delivery point to the
sender incoming point, which then forwards it to the sender delivery
point, upon insertion of the message inside the recipient's PEC
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
mailbox. A separate delivery notification is generated upon delivery
of the message to each different recipient indicated in the "To:"
and "Cc:" fields of said message. The notification is signed using
the receiver PEC provider's key.
Holder: The person to whom a PEC mailbox is assigned.
Incoming point: Is the point that receives messages within a PEC
domain. Once received, it runs checks on origin and correctness,
inserts messages that contain errors in anomaly envelopes, checks
for the presence of viruses in incoming messages, and, when all
checks go smoothly, forwards the received message to the delivery
point inside the same domain. The messages it can emit are:
o take in charge notifications (inter-provider acknowledgment);
o virus detection notifications;
o non-delivery notifications due to timeout;
o non-delivery notifications due to virus detection.
All messages received by the incoming point are forwarded to the
delivery point of the same domain.
Message sent: A PEC message is considered sent when the sender's PEC
provider, after several checks, accepts the email and returns an
acceptance notification to the sender.
Message received: A PEC message is considered received when it is
stored in the receiver's mailbox, after which the receiver PEC
provider returns a delivery notification to the sender.
Msgid: Is the message ID generated by the email client, as defined
in [EMAIL], before the message is submitted to the PEC system.
Non-acceptance notification: Emitted by the sender access point to
its user when it is impossible for it to accept the message. The
reason (either virus or formal exceptions detection) is indicated
within the notification text, which also explicitly informs the user
that the message will not be forwarded to the receiver. The
notification is signed using the sender PEC provider's key.
Non-delivery notification: Emitted by the PEC provider to the sender
of the original message, when message delivery is not possible, to
indicate the anomaly. Non-delivery can be caused by one of the
following 3 reasons:
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
o timeout; notification is generated by the sender incoming point
and sent to the sender delivery point.
o virus detection; notification is generated by the receiver
incoming point and sent to the sender incoming point.
o other reasons; such as disk quota exceeded, domain unknown or
user unknown. In this case, the notification is generated by the
receiver delivery point to the sender incoming point.
Original message: Is the user-generated message before its arrival
to the sender access point. The original message is delivered to the
recipient inside a transport envelope.
PEC domain: Corresponds to a DNS domain dedicated to the holders'
mailboxes. Within a PEC domain, all PEC mailboxes MUST belong to
holders. PEC messages MUST be elaborated even if both sender and
recipient belong to the same PEC domain.
PEC mailbox: An electronic mailbox for which delivery notifications
are issued upon reception of PEC messages. Such a mailbox can be
defined exclusively within a PEC domain.
PEC msgid: Is a unique identifier generated by the PEC system, which
will substitute the msgid.
PEC provider: The entity that handles one or more PEC domains with
their relative points of access, reception, and delivery. It is the
holder of the key that is used for signing notifications and
envelope, and it interacts with other PEC providers for
interoperability with other holders.
PEC provider's key: Is a key released by CNIPA to every PEC
provider. It is used to sign notifications and envelopes, and to
authorize access to the PEC providers directory.
PEC providers directory: Is an LDAP server positioned in an area
reachable by all PEC service providers. It constitutes the technical
structure related to the public list of PEC service providers, and
contains the list of PEC domains and service providers with relevant
certificates corresponding to the keys used for signing
notifications and transport envelopes.
Service mailbox: A mailbox for the sole use of the provider,
dedicated for the reception of take in charge and virus detection
notifications.
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
Take in charge notification: Emitted by the receiver incoming point
to the sender's service mailbox -through the latter's incoming
point- to attest that the receiver PEC provider has taken
responsibility for message delivery. Certification data is inserted
within this notification to allow its association with the message
it refers to. It is then signed using the receiving PEC provider's
key.
Time stamp: A digital evidence with which a temporal reference, that
can be opposed by third parties, is attributed to one or more
documents.
Transport envelope: A message created by the sender access point, in
which the original message and related certification data are
inserted. It is signed using the sender PEC provider's key, and is
delivered, unmodified, to the receiving PEC mailbox. Thus, allowing
the verification of the certification data by the receiving user.
2. PEC model
2.1. System-generated messages
The PEC system generates messages in MIME format. They are composed
of a descriptive textual part and some other MIME parts, the number
and content of which varies according to the type of message
generated.
A system-generated message falls into one of the following
categories:
o Notifications;
o Envelopes.
The message is inserted in an S/MIME v3 structure in CMS format and
signed with the PEC provider's private key. The X.509v3 certificate
associated with the key MUST be included in the aforementioned
structure. The S/MIME format used to sign system-generated messages
is the "multipart/signed" format (.p7s), as described in section
3.4.3 of [SMIMEV3].
To guarantee the verifiability of signatures on as many mail clients
as possible, X.509v3 certificates used by certified email systems
MUST abide by the profile found in section 6.5.
In order for the receiving mail client to be able to verify the
signature, the sender address must coincide with the one indicated
within the X.509v3 certificate. This mechanism requires transport
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
envelopes to indicate in the "From:" field a sender address which is
different from the one contained in the original message. To allow
for better message usability by the receiving user, the sender's
mail address in the original message is inserted as a "display
name". For example, a "From:" field such as:
From: "John Smith" <john.smith@domain.com>
would result in the following "From:" value in the respective
transport envelope:
From: "On behalf of: john.smith@domain.com"
<certified-mail@provider.com>
It is necessary for the "Reply-To:" field to contain a correct value
in the transport envelope, so replies can be correctly sent back to
the proper destination. When such a field is not explicitly
specified in the original message, the system that generates the
transport envelope sees to its creation by extracting the
information from the "From:" field in the original message. If on
the other hand that field is specified in the original message, it
MUST NOT be altered.
When notifications need to be sent, the system uses as destination
address that of the original message's sender only, exactly as is
specified in the reverse path data of the SMTP protocol.
Notifications MUST be sent to the sender's PEC mailbox without
taking into account the "Reply-To:" field, which might be present in
the original message's header.
All system-generated PEC messages are identifiable for having a
specific header defined in PEC according to the type of message
generated.
To determine the certification data, the elements used for the
actual routing of the message are employed. In SMTP dialog phases,
the reverse path and forward path data ("MAIL FROM" and "RCPT TO"
commands) are thus considered certification data of both the sender
and the recipients respectively. Addressing data present in the
message body ("To:" and "Cc:" fields) are used solely in order to
discriminate between primary and carbon copy recipients when
necessary; addressing data present in the "Bcc:" field MUST be
considered invalid by the system.
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
2.1.1. Message types
All system-generated messages inherit their header fields and values
from the original message, with extra fields added according to the
type of message generated.
2.1.1.1. Notifications
They have the purpose of informing the sending user and interacting
providers of the progress the message is making within the PEC
network.
2.1.1.1.1. Success notifications
Indicates an acknowledgment on the provider's side for the reception
or handling of a PEC message. More specifically, it can indicate one
of 3 situations: acceptance, take in charge, or delivery.
Added header fields are:
o X-Ricevuta
o X-Riferimento-Message-ID
The field "X-Ricevuta" (Notification) indicates the type of
notification contained in the message, whereas "X-Riferimento-
Message-ID" (Reference Message-ID) contains the message ID generated
by the mail client.
The body contents differ according to the notification type. This is
described more thoroughly in chapter 3.
o An acceptance notification informs the user that his provider has
accepted the message and will be taking care of passing it on to
the provider(s) of the addressee(s).
o A take in charge notification is an inter-provider communication
only, it MUST NOT concern the users. With this notification, the
receiving provider simply informs the sending one that it has
received a PEC message, and will take the responsibility of
forwarding it to the addressee(s). From then on, the sender
provider is no longer held responsible as to the whereabouts of
the message, but is limited to notifying its user of the success
or failure of delivery.
o Delivery notifications take place as the final communication of a
transaction, indicating overall success in handing the message
over to the addressee(s).
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
2.1.1.1.2. Delay notifications
Delay notifications are sent out 12 hours after a message has been
dispatched from the sending provider, and no take in charge or
delivery notification was received. These have the sole purpose of
notifying the user of the delay.
If another 12 hours go by without any sign of a take in charge or
delivery notification (amounting to a 24-hour delay), another delay
notification is dispatched to the user informing him of the possible
delivery failure. The provider will not keep track of the delay any
further.
2.1.1.1.3. Failure notifications
They are sent when there is some error in transmission or reception.
More specifically, a failure notification can indicate either a
formal-exception error, or a virus detection.
Added header fields are:
o X-Ricevuta;
o X-Riferimento-Message-ID;
o X-VerificaSicurezza [optional]
"X-Ricevuta" (Notification) and "X-Riferimento-Message-ID"
(Reference Message-ID) have the same roles as indicated in section
2.1.1.1.1 (Success Notifications). "X-VerificaSicurezza" (Security
Verification) is an optional header field, used for virus-related
notifications.
Body contents differ according to notification type. This is
described more thoroughly in chapter 3.
2.1.1.2. PEC envelopes
Messages entering the PEC network are inserted within specific PEC
messages, called envelopes, before they are allowed to circulate
further within the network. These envelopes MUST inherit the
following header fields, along with their unmodified values, from
the message itself.
o Received
o To
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
o Cc
o Return-Path
o Reply-to (if present)
Depending on the type of message requesting admission into the PEC
network, it will be inserted either in a "Transport Envelope", or in
a "Anomaly Envelope". Distinction will be possible through the
addition of the "X-Transport" header field.
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
2.2. Basic structure
+-------------+ +------------+
| +--+ | | |
| |AP| | | |
+----+ | +--+ | messages& | +--+ +---+ | +----+
|user|<-->| |<------------->| |DP| |InP| |<-->|user|
+----+ | +--+ +---+ | notifications | +--+ +---+ | +----+
| |DP| |InP| | | |
| +--+ +---+ | | |
+-------------+ +------------+
PEC PEC
sender receiver
provider provider
where:
AP = Access Point
DP = Delivery Point
InP = Incoming Point
2.2.1. Access point
This is what the user client at the sender side interacts with,
giving the user access to PEC services set up by the provider. Such
access MUST be preceded by user authentication on the system (see
section 6.2). The access point is then to receive the original
messages its user wishes to send, run some formal checks, and act
according to the outcome:
o if the message passes all checks, the access point generates an
acceptance notification and inserts the original message inside a
transport envelope;
o if some formal exception is detected, the access point refuses
the message and emits the relevant non-acceptance notification
(see section 3.1.1);
o if a virus is detected, the access point generates a non-
acceptance notification and inserts the original message as is in
a special store.
Generation of the acceptance notification indicates to the user that
the message was accepted by the system, certifying also the date and
time of the event. The notification MUST contain user-readable text,
and an XML part containing the certification data. The notification
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
MAY also contain other attachments for extra features offered by the
provider.
Using the data available in the PEC providers directory (see section
4.5), the access point runs checks on every recipient in the "To:"
and "Cc:" fields present in the original message to verify whether
they belong to the PEC infrastructure or to non-PEC domains. Such
checks are done by verifying the existence, through a case
insensitive search, of the recipients' domains in the
"managedDomains" attribute found within the PEC providers directory.
Therefore, the acceptance notification (and relevant certification
data) relates, for each address, the typology of its domain; PEC or
non-PEC.
The identifier (from now on PEC msgid) of accepted original messages
within the PEC infrastructure MUST be unambiguous in order to
consent correct tracking of messages and relative notifications. The
format of such an identifier is:
[alphanumeric string]@[provider mail domain]
or:
[alphanumeric string]@[FQDN mail server]
Therefore, both the original message and the corresponding transport
envelope MUST contain the following header field:
Message-ID: <[unique identifier]>
In case the email client that is interacting with the access point
has already inserted a Message ID (from now on msgid) in the
original message, that msgid SHALL be substituted by a PEC msgid. In
order to allow the sender to link the message sent with the relative
notifications, the msgid MUST be inserted in the original message as
well as the relative notifications and transport envelope. If
existent, the msgid is REQUIRED to be provided in the original
message's header by adding the following header field:
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: <[original Message ID]>
which will also be inserted in the transport envelope and
notifications, and related in the certification data (see section
4.4).
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
2.2.2. Incoming point
This point permits the exchange of PEC messages and notifications
between PEC providers. It is also the point through which ordinary
mail messages can be inserted within the circuit of certified mail.
The exchange of messages between providers takes place through SMTP-
based transactions, as defined in [SMTP]. If SMTP communication
errors occur, they MAY be handled using the standard error
notification mechanisms, as provided by SMTP in [SMTP] and [SMTP-
DSN]. The same mechanism is also adopted for handling transitory
errors, that result in long idling periods, during an SMTP
transmission phase. In order to guarantee the emission of a signal
to the user when an error occurs, coherently with the modalities
defined in section 3.3.3, the systems that handle PEC traffic MUST
adopt a time limit for message idleness equal to 24 hours.
Once a message arrives, the incoming point runs the following list
of checks and operations:
o verifies correctness and nature of the incoming message;
o if the incoming message is a correct and undamaged transport
message:
- emits a take in charge notification towards the sender
provider (section 3.2.1);
- forwards the transport envelope to the delivery point
(section 3.3).
o if the incoming message is a correct and undamaged notification:
- forwards the notification to the delivery point.
o if the incoming message does not conform to the prerequisites of
a correct and undamaged transport envelope or notification, but
comes from a PEC provider, therefore passes the verifications
regarding existence, origin, and signature validity, then the
message MUST be propagated towards the recipient. Therefore, the
incoming point:
- inserts the incoming message in an anomaly envelope (section
3.2.2);
- forwards the anomaly envelope to the delivery point.
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
o if the incoming message does not originate from a PEC system,
therefore fails verifications regarding existence, origin and
signature validity, then the message will be treated as ordinary
email, and, if propagated to the recipient:
- is inserted in an anomaly envelope (section 3.2.2);
- the anomaly envelope is forwarded to the delivery point.
The take in charge notification is generated by the receiving
provider and sent to the sending provider. Its purpose is to keep
track of the message in its transition from one provider to another,
and is therefore strictly intra-provider communication; the end user
knows nothing about it.
To check the correctness and integrity of a transport envelope or
notification, the incoming point runs the following tests:
o Signature existence - the system verifies the presence of an
S/MIME signature structure within the incoming message;
o Signature origin - the system verifies whether or not the
signature was emitted by a PEC provider. So, the incoming point
extracts the certificate used for signing the incoming message and
verifies its presence in the PEC providers directory. To ease the
check, it is possible to calculate the extracted certificate's
SHA1 hash value and perform a case-insensitive search of its
hexadecimal representation within the "providerCertificateHash"
attribute found in the PEC providers directory. This operation
allows to easily identify the sender provider for subsequent and
necessary matching checks between the extracted certificate and the
one present in the provider's record;
o Signature validity - correctness is verified by recalculating the
signature algorithm and verifying the CRL and temporal validity of
the certificate. In case some caching mechanism is used for CRL
contents, an update interval MUST be adopted so that the most up-
to-date data is guaranteed, thus minimizing the possible delay
between a publication revocation by the Certification Authority
and the variation acknowledgment by the provider;
o Formal correctness - the provider performs sufficient and
necessary checks to guarantee formal correctness aspects which are
necessary for interoperability.
If a virus-infected transport envelope passes the checks just
mentioned it is still considered correct and undamaged. The presence
of the virus will be detected in a second phase, during which the
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
contents of the transport envelope are verified. Thus, the incoming
point will refrain from forwarding the message to the recipient,
instead sending the appropriate notification of non-delivery and
storing the virus-infected message in a special storage.
In case ordinary mail messages are received, the PEC provider SHALL
perform virus checks in order to prevent the infiltration of
potentially dangerous mail messages within the PEC circuit. If a
virus is detected in an ordinary mail message, the latter can be
discarded at the incoming point before it enters the PEC circuit. In
other words, no special treatment is reserved for the error, but a
handling that is conformant to the procedures usually followed for
messages going through the Internet.
When a virus is detected inside a transport envelope during the
reception phase, the receiver's provider emits a virus detection
notification to the sender provider. The sender provider then MUST:
o check what virus typologies were not detected by its own
antivirus, to understand the motivations and verify the
possibility of interventions;
o send a virus-induced non-delivery notification to the sender.
2.2.3. Delivery point
Is the point that receives messages from the incoming point and
forwards them to the final recipient.
It MUST run a series of tests on received messages before forwarding
them to the user. It first verifies the typology of the message, and
decides whether or not a notification should be issued to the
sender. The delivery notification (section 3.3.2) is emitted after
the message was delivered to the recipient's PEC mailbox and only at
reception of a valid transport envelope, which can be identifiable
by the presence of the header attribute:
X-Trasporto: posta-certificata
In all other cases, such as anomaly envelopes and notifications, the
delivery notification is not emitted. In any case, the message
received from the delivery point MUST be delivered unmodified to the
recipient's mailbox.
The delivery notification indicates to the sender that the message
sent was in fact conveyed to the specified recipient's mailbox, and
certifies the date and time of delivery through use of user-readable
text and an XML part containing certification data, along with other
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
possible attachments added for extra features offered by the
provider.
If the message received at the delivery point can't be delivered to
the destination mailbox, the delivery point emits a non-delivery
notification (section 3.3.3). This notification is generated when an
relative to the delivery of a correct transport envelope is
encountered.
2.2.4. Storage
Each provider MUST dedicate a special storage for the deposition of
any virus-infected messages encountered. Whether the virus be
detected by the sender's access point or the receiver's incoming
point, the provider that detects it MUST store the mail message in
its own storage, and keep it for 30 months.
2.2.5. Provider service mailbox
For exclusive use of the provider, dedicated to the reception of
notifications in 2 cases only:
o take in charge notifications; and
o virus detection notification.
2.3. Log
The server administrator MUST keep track of any and all operations
carried out in a specific message log file. The information kept in
the log for each operation is the following:
o message ID (the value present in the Message-ID header field in
the original message)
o date and time of event
o sender of original message
o recipient(s) of original message
o subject of original message
o event type (reception, delivery, notification emission, etc)
o Message-IDs of related generated messages
o sending provider
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
The service provider MUST store that data and preserve it for 30
months.
3. Message processing
3.1. Access point
3.1.1. Formal checks on messages
When the access point receives a message the user wishes to send, it
MUST guarantee said message's formal conformity, verifying that the:
o message body contains a "From:" field holding a [EMAIL]-compliant
email address;
o message body contains a "To:" field holding one or more [EMAIL]-
compliant email addresses;
o sender's address, specified in the SMTP reverse path, coincides
with the one in the message's "From:" field;
o recipients' addresses specified in the SMTP forward path coincide
with the ones present in the "To:" or "Cc:" fields of the message;
o "Bcc:" field does not hold any value;
o total message size falls within the limits accepted by the
provider. Such limits apply depending on the number of recipients
as well; by multiplying it to the message size, the outcome MUST
fall within the limits accepted by the provider. Italian Laws have
specified this limit as being 30MB.
If the message does not pass the tests, the access point MUST NOT
accept the message within the PEC system, thus emitting the relative
notification of non-acceptance.
3.1.2. Non-acceptance notification due to one or more formal exceptions
When the access point cannot forward the message received, due to
failure in passing the formal checks, the sender is notified of such
an outcome. If the error is caused by the message failing size
checks, a non-acceptance notification is sent as long as the size
remains bound by a certain limit. If the size exceeds said limit,
error handling is left to SMTP.
The header for such a notification will contain the following
fields:
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
X-Ricevuta: non-accettazione
Date: [date of notification emission]
Subject: AVVISO DI NON ACCETTAZIONE: [original subject]
From: certified-mail@[mail domain]
To: [original sender]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [Message-ID of original message]
The body of this notification is composed of text that constitutes
the actual notification in readable format according to a model that
relates the following information:
Error in message acceptance
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), in the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to:
[recipient_1]
[recipient_2]
.
.
.
[recipient_n]
a problem was detected which prevents its acceptance due to [error
description].
The message was not accepted.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification information is inserted within an XML file to
be attached to the notification message, allowing its automatic
elaboration (section 4.4). Other attachments MAY BE added to the
notification message to follow certain functional specifications
supplied by the provider, but the original message MUST NOT in any
case be inserted.
3.1.3. Non-acceptance notification due to virus detection
If the access point receives virus-infected emails from its user, it
MUST NOT accept them, but notify the sender immediately of dispatch
impossibility instead.
The access point MUST run some tests on the content of the incoming
message and reject it if a virus is detected. In which case, a
virus-detection-induced non-acceptance notification MUST be emitted
to clearly communicate the reason of message refusal to the user.
For this non-acceptance notification the header contains the
following fields:
X-Ricevuta: non-accettazione
X-VerificaSicurezza: errore
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
Date: [notification emission date]
Subject: AVVISO DI NON ACCETTAZIONE PER VIRUS: [original subject]
From: certified-mail@[mail_domain]
To: [original sender]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [Message-ID of original message]
The notification's body is composed of readable text according to
the following model:
Error in message acceptance due to virus presence
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), in the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to:
[recipient_1]
[recipient_2]
.
.
.
[recipient_n]
a security problem was detected [ID of detected content type].
The message was not accepted.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification data is inserted in an XML file added to the
notification to allow for automatic elaboration (section 4.4). The
notification MAY contain other attachments relevant to specific
functionalities supplied by the provider, though the original
message MUST NOT in any case be attached.
3.1.4. Acceptance notification
The acceptance notification is a message sent to the sender,
containing date and time of acceptance, sender and recipient data,
and subject.
The header will contain the following fields:
X-Ricevuta: accettazione
Date: [actual date of acceptance]
Subject: ACCETTAZIONE: [original subject]
From: certified-mail@[mail_domain]
To: [original sender]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [Message-ID of original message]
The message body is composed of text that constitutes the
notification in readable format, according to a model that relates
the following information:
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
Acceptance notification
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to:
[recipient_1] (["certified mail" | "ordinary mail"])
[recipient_2] (["certified mail" | "ordinary mail"])
.
.
.
[recipient_n] (["certified mail" | "ordinary mail"])
was accepted by the system and forwarded to the recipient(s).
Message identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification information is inserted within an XML file
attached to the notification message, allowing its automatic
elaboration (section 4.4). Other attachments MAY BE added to the
notification message to follow certain functional specifications
supplied by the provider.
3.1.5. Transport envelope
A transport envelope is a message generated by the access point
which contains the original message as well as certification data.
As was mentioned in section 2.1.1.2, the transport envelope inherits
from the original message the values of the following header fields,
which MUST be related unmodified:
o Received
o To
o Cc
o Return-Path
o Reply-To (if present)
On the other hand, the following fields will HAVE TO be modified, or
inserted if necessary:
X-Trasporto: posta-certificata
Date: [actual date of acceptance]
Subject: POSTA CERTIFICATA: [original subject]
From: "On behalf of: [original sender]"
<certified-mail@[mail_domain]>
Reply-To: [original sender] (inserted only if not already present)
Message-ID: [PEC message ID generated as explained in 2.2.1]
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [message ID of original message]
X-TipoRicevuta: [completa/breve/sintetica]
The "X-TipoRicevuta" field indicates the type of delivery
notification the sender wishes to receive - complete, brief, or
concise.
The body of the transport envelope is composed of text that
constitutes the readable format of the message, according to a model
that relates the following certification data:
Certified mail message
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), the message "[subject]" was
sent by "[original sender]" and addressed to:
[recipient_1]
[recipient_2]
.
.
.
[recipient_n]
The original message is included in attachment.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
Within the transport envelope, the entire, non-modified original
message is attached in a [EMAIL]]compliant format (except for what
has been said regarding the Message ID). In the same transport
envelope, another part is added, which is an XML part. It is easy to
elaborate, and contains the certification data that was already
related in text format, as well as other information on the type of
message and type of notification requested (section 4.4). Other
elements MAY BE added to the transport envelope for functionalities
supplied by the PEC provider.
Even if the "From:" field of the transport envelope is modified to
allow for the verification of the signature by the recipient,
routing data of the transport envelope (forward and reverse paths)
remain unchanged with respect to the same data of the original
message.
3.1.6. Timeout delivery error notification
If the sending provider does not receive a take in charge or
delivery notification from the receiving provider within 12 hours
after message dispatch, it informs the user that the recipient's
provider might not be able to deliver the message. In case the
sending provider doesn't receive a delivery notification within 24
hours after message dispatch, it emits another non-delivery
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
notification to the user by the 24-hour timeout, but not before 22
hours have passed.
Such a communication takes place through a notification of non-
delivery due to timeout, the header of which contains the following
fields:
X-Ricevuta: preavviso-errore-consegna
Date: [date of notification emission]
Subject: AVVISO DI MANCATA CONSEGNA PER SUP. TEMPO MASSIMO:
[original subject]
From: certified-mail@[mail_domain]
To: [original recipient]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [Message-ID of original message]
The message body of the first non-delivery notification (12-hour
timeout) is composed of text that represents the readable format of
the notification, which will relate the following data:
Non-delivery notification
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), the message
"[subject]" originating from "[original sender]"
and addressed to "[recipient]"
has not been delivered within the first 12 hours following its
dispatch. Not excluding that the message might eventually be
delivered, it is deemed useful to consider that dispatch might not
have a positive outcome. The system will see to sending another
non-delivery notification if in the following twelve hours no
confirmation is received from the recipient.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
On the other hand, 24-hour-timeout induced notifications, who have
the same header as described above, will have the following text in
their body:
Non-delivery notification
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), the message
"[subject]" originating from "[original sender]"
and addressed to "[recipient]"
has not been delivered within 24 hours of its dispatch.
The transaction is deemed to be considered terminated with a
negative outcome.
Massage identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification data is inserted in an XML file to be
attached to both notification types to allow an automatic
elaboration (section 4.4). Within the notification other attachments
MAY be present for specific functionalities supplied by the PEC
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
provider; nonetheless the original message MUST NOT in any case be
included.
A timeout notification is generated if one of the following
scenarios occurs:
o the sending provider receives a take in charge notification
during the first 12 hours following message dispatch, but does not
receive a delivery notification at all. In this case it would be a
24-hour timeout notification.
o the sending provider does not receive a take in charge
notification, but receives a delivery notification after 12 hours
and before the 24-hour timeout. In this case it would be a 12-hour
timeout notification.
o the sending provider doesn't receive neither a take in charge
notification nor a delivery notification. In this case 2 timeout
notifications are generated; a 12-hour and a 24-hour timeout
notification.
3.2. Incoming point
3.2.1. Take in charge notification
When correct PEC transport envelopes (as defined in section 2.2.2.)
are exchanged between PEC providers, the receiver MUST dispatch a
take in charge notification to the sender. The dispatched take in
charge notifications concern all recipients to whom the incoming
message was addressed, as stated in the routing data (forward and
reverse paths) of the SMTP transaction. Within the certification
data of a single take in charge notification, all recipients of the
message to which it refers are listed. In general, when receiving a
transport envelope, each provider MUST emit one or more take in
charge notifications in order to cover, in absence of SMTP transport
errors, all the recipients in its jurisdiction.
The header of a take in charge notification contains the following
fields:
X-Ricevuta: presa-in-carico
Date: [date of take in charge]
Subject: PRESA IN CARICO: [original subject]
From: certified-mail@[mail_domain]
To: [sender provider service mailbox]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [Message-ID of original message]
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
The provider's service mail address is obtained from the PEC
providers directory during the necessary queries made in the
signature verification stage.
The notification body is constructed following the underlying model:
take in charge notification
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to:
[recipient_1] (["certified mail" | "ordinary mail"])
[recipient_2] (["certified mail" | "ordinary mail"])
.
.
.
[recipient_n] (["certified mail" | "ordinary mail"])
was accepted by the system.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification data is inserted in an XML file which is
added to the notification message to allow for automatic elaboration
(section 4.4). The notification MAY also contain other attachments
relevant to specific functionalities supplied by the provider.
3.2.2. Anomaly envelope
If the tests on an incoming message detect an error, or the message
is identified as being ordinary mail and the provider is set to
forward it to the recipient, the system inserts such a message in an
anomaly envelope. Before delivery, the entire message received at
the incoming point is inserted in an [EMAIL]-compliant format as an
attachment inside a new message that HAS TO inherit the values for
the following header fields unmodified from the message received:
o Received
o To
o Cc
o Return-Path
o Message-ID
Whereas, the following header fields will HAVE TO be modified or
inserted:
X-Trasporto: errore
Date: [message arrival date]
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
Subject: ANOMALIA MESSAGGIO: [original subject]
From: "On behalf of: [original sender]"
<certified-mail@[mail_domain]>
Reply-To: [original sender (inserted only if not already present)]
The body is composed of user-readable text according to a model that
relates the following data:
Message anomaly
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to:
[recipient_1]
[recipient_2]
.
.
.
[recipient_n]
was received.
The data has not been certified due to the following error:
[concise description of error]
The original message is attached.
Due to uncertainty regarding origin and/or conformity of the message
received, the anomaly envelope MUST NOT contain attachments other
than the entire message that arrived at the incoming point.
Even though the "From:" field of the anomaly envelope is modified
for signature verification purposes, routing data of such an
envelope (forward and reverse paths) remain unchanged with respect
to the same data present in the message received. Doing so
guarantees both the forwarding of the message to the recipients, and
the reception of SMTP error notifications, if any occur, by the
sender (as specified in [SMTP] & [SMTP-DSN]).
3.2.3. Virus detection notification
If the incoming point receives virus-infected PEC messages, it MUST
NOT forward them, rather it MUST inform the sending provider, which
will in turn inform the sending user, of the impossibility to go
through with the transmission. A separate notification of virus
detection will HAVE to be sent on behalf of every recipient within
the provider's domain.
In case a virus is detected during the reception phase of a message
whose origin was asserted through sender signature verification, the
system generates a virus-detected notification, indicating the error
found, to be sent to the sending provider's service mailbox.
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
For this kind of notification, the header contains the following
fields:
X-Ricevuta: rilevazione-virus
X-Sender: [original sender]
Date: [date of notification emission]
Subject: PROBLEMA DI SICUREZZA: [original subject]
From: certified-mail@[mail_domain]
To: [sender provider notifications]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [Message-ID of original message]
The body is composed of readable text according to a model which
relates the following data:
Virus detection notification
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), in the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to
"[recipient]"
a security problem was detected [ID of content type detected].
Message identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification data is inserted in an XML file and attached
to the notification to allow for automatic elaboration (section
4.4). The notification MAY contain other attachments relevant to
specific functionalities supplied by the provider; however, it MUST
NOT contain the original message.
The message body MUST contain the reason for which the transmission
could not be completed.
3.2.4. Virus-induced delivery error notification
At the arrival of a virus detected notification from the receiving
provider, the sender provider emits a non-delivery notification to
the sending user.
The header for this notification contains the following fields:
X-Ricevuta: errore-consegna
X-VerificaSicurezza: errore
Date: [date of notification emission]
Subject: AVVISO DI MANCATA CONSEGNA PER VIRUS: [original subject]
From: certified-mail@[mail_domain]
To: [original sender]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [Message-ID of original message]
The body is composed of readable text according to the following
data:
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
Delivery error notification due to virus
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), in the message "[subject]"
addressed to "[recipient]"
a security problem was detected [ID of content type detected by
the anti-virus].
The message was not delivered.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
All the information necessary for the construction of such a
notification can be obtained from the correlated virus-detected
notification.
The same certification data is inserted in an XML file and attached
to the notification message to allow for automatic elaboration
(section 4.4). The notification message MAY contain other
attachments relevant to specific functionalities supplied by the
provider. The reason for which the transaction was impossible to
complete MUST be specified within the message body.
3.3. Delivery point
3.3.1. Checks on incoming messages
When a message arrives at the delivery point, the system verifies
its type and determines whether or not a notification should be
emitted to the sender.
3.3.2. Delivery notification
A delivery notification is issued after the received message has
been delivered to the recipient's mailbox, and only upon the
reception of a correct PEC transport envelope. The latter can be
easily identifiable for the presence of the following header field:
X-Trasporto: posta-certificata
In all other cases (e.g. anomaly envelopes, notifications), the
delivery notification is not issued. In any case, the message
received at the delivery point MUST be delivered to the recipient's
mailbox unchanged.
This notification tells the user that his/her message has been
successfully delivered to the specified recipient. It includes
readable text, that certifies the date and time of delivery, sender
and receiver data, and the subject. It also contains an XML
certification data file, and other optional attachments for
functionalities offered by the provider.
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
The following fields are inserted in the header:
X-Ricevuta: avvenuta-consegna
Date: [delivery date]
Subject: CONSEGNA: [original subject]
From: certified-mail@[mail_domain]
To: [original sender]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [Message-ID of original message]
The value of the "X-TipoRicevuta" header field in the transport
envelope is derived from the original message, thus allowing the
sender to determine the format of the delivery notifications
relative to the primary recipients of the original message.
3.3.2.1. Delivery notification: complete
This is the default value for delivery notifications. When no value
for the "X-TipoRicevuta" is specified, or when it contains the value
"complete", the system will require a complete delivery notification
from addressees in the "To:" field, while a concise notification
(section 3.3.2.3) will be required from those in the "Cc:" field.
The distinction between primary recipients and those receiving in
carbon copy is done through an analysis of the "To:" and "Cc:"
fields of the message with respect to the delivery addressee.
Exclusively in notifications sent on behalf of primary recipients,
along with the attachments already described, a complete copy of the
original message is inserted. In case the system in charge of
delivery is not able to determine the recipient type due to
ambiguity problems in the "To:" and "Cc:" fields, delivery will HAVE
TO be considered as if addressed to a primary recipient and include
the complete copy of the original message.
The notification body is composed of readable text according to a
model that relates the following certification data:
Delivery notification
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to
"[recipient]"
was placed in the destination's mailbox.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification data is inserted in an XML file to be
attached to the notification (section 4.4), along with any other
attachments that MAY be inserted for specific functionalities
supplied by the provider. The delivery notification MUST be issued
on the behalf of every recipient of the message.
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
3.3.2.2. Delivery notification: brief
In order to decrease the amount of data flowing, it is possible for
the sender to ask for a delivery notification in "brief" format. The
brief delivery notification contains the original message, with all
attachments, if present, substituted with their respective ciphered
hash values. To be able to verify the transmitted contents, it is
necessary for the sender to keep the original copy of the
attachment(s), to which the hash values refer, unchanged.
If the transport envelope contains the header
X-TipoRicevuta: breve
the delivery point emits a brief delivery notification on behalf of
the primary recipients, and a concise one (section 3.3.2.3) on
behalf of carbon copy recipients. The value of the header in the
transport envelope is derived from the original message.
The notification body is composed of readable text according to a
model that relates the following certification data:
Brief delivery notification
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to
"[recipient]"
was placed in the destination's mailbox.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification data is inserted in an XML file and attached
to the notification (section 4.4), along with other optional
attachments specific to provider-supplied functionalities. The
delivery notification is issued on behalf of every recipient of the
message.
The MIME structure of the original message is unaltered as it is
attached to the notification, but its attachment(s) are substituted
with as many text files as the attachments are, each containing the
hash value of the file it substitutes. The attachments are
identified through the presence of the "name" parameter in the
header "content-type", or "filename" in the header "content-
disposition" of the MIME part.
When the original message has an S/MIME format, it is necessary not
to alter the integrity of the message structure, which would result
in modifying the MIME parts of the S/MIME construction. Verification
of the S/MIME nature in the original message takes place when the
MIME type of the top-level entity (which coincides with the message
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
itself) is checked. An S/MIME message MAY have the following MIME
types (as per [SMIMEV3]):
o multipart/signed
Represents an original message signed by the sender using the
structure described in [MIME-SECURE]. The message is made up of 2
MIME parts: the first is the message itself before the application
of the sender's signature, whereas the second contains signature
data. The second part (generally of type "application/pkcs7-
signature" or "application/x-pkcs-signature") contains data added
during the signing phase and MUST be left unchanged to avoid
compromising the overall message structure;
o "application/pkcs7-mime" or "application/x-pkcs7-signature"
The message is composed of a sole CMS object within the MIME part.
Given the impossibility to distinguish attachments, if present
within the CMS object, the MIME part is left intact without being
substituted by the respective hash value, thus determining the
emission of a brief delivery notification with the same contents of
a normal delivery notification.
If the original message contains attachments whose content-type is
"message/rfc822", i.e. contains an email message as attachment, the
entire attached message is substituted with its corresponding hash
value.
Therefore, when emitting a brief delivery notification, the provider
MUST:
1. Identify and extract all the attachments from the first MIME part
of the multipart/signed S/MIME message;
2. calculate the hash values of all the files attached by the sender
to the original message;
3. substitute originals with their hash values.
In general, in the case of original messages in S/MIME format, the
copy of the message inserted within the brief delivery notification
will have the following characteristics:
o if the original message is signed, the S/MIME structure and
signature-relative data will remain unchanged. The message will
generate an error in a future signature integrity verification
phase following the substitution of attachments with the
corresponding hash values.
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
o if the original message contains the "application/pkcs7-mime" or
"application/x-pkcs7-mime" MIME type, attachments present in the
message will not be substituted by their hash values, due to
impossibility of identification within a CMS structure. The
content of the brief delivery notification will coincide with that
of a normal delivery notification.
The algorithm used for hash calculation is the [SHA1], calculated on
the entire content of the attachment. To allow distinction between
hash files and the files to which they refer, the suffix ".hash" is
added to the original filename. The hash value is written in the
file using a hexadecimal representation as a single sequence of 40
characters. The MIME type of these attachments is set to
"text/plain" to highlight their textual nature.
3.3.2.3. Delivery notification: concise
If the transport envelope contains the header
X-TipoRicevuta: sintetica
the delivery point emits, both to primary and carbon copy
recipients, a concise delivery notification that does not contain
the original message.
The message body of the notification is composed of readable text
according to a model that relates the following certification data:
Concise delivery notification
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to
"[recipient]"
was placed in the destination's mailbox.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification data is inserted within an XML file to be
attached to the notification (section 4.4), along with other
optional attachments specific to provider-supplied functionalities.
The notification is sent to each one of the recipients to whom the
message is delivered.
The concise delivery notification follows the same emission rules as
the delivery notification; attached to it is the XML file which
contains the certification data only, and not the original message.
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
3.3.3. Non-delivery notification
If an error occurs during the delivery of a correct PEC transport
message, the system generates a notification for non-delivery to be
sent to the sender, with indication of the error.
The header will contain the following fields:
X-Ricevuta: errore-consegna
Date: [date of notification emission]
Subject: AVVISO DI MANCATA CONSEGNA: [original subject]
From: certified-mail@[mail_domain]
To: [original sender]
X-Riferimento-Message-ID: [Message-ID of original message]
The notification body is composed of readable text according to a
model that relates the following data:
Non-delivery notification
On [date] at [time] ([time zone]), in the message "[subject]"
originating from "[original sender]" and addressed to
"[recipient]"
an error was detected.
The message was refused by the system.
Message identification: [Message-ID]
The same certification data is inserted within an XML files added to
the notification in order to allow for a an automatic elaboration
(section 4.4). The notification MAY contain other attachments for
specific functionalities supplied by the PEC provider.
4. Formats
4.1. Temporal reference
For all operations carried out during message, notification, and log
elaboration processes by the access, incoming and delivery points,
it is necessary to have an accurate temporal reference available.
All events (generation of notifications, transport envelopes, logs,
etc) that constitute the transaction of message elaboration at the
access, incoming, and delivery points MUST employ a sole temporal
value obtained from within the transaction itself. Doing this
renders the instant of message elaboration unambiguous within logs,
notifications, messages, etc, generated by the server.
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
4.2. User date/time
Temporal indications supplied by the service in readable format
(text in notifications, transport envelopes, etc) are provided with
reference to the legal time at the moment of the operation. The date
employs the format, "dd/mm/yyyy", whereas the hour uses the format,
"hh:mm:ss", where "hh" is in 24hour format. The date and time are
followed by the time zone, i.e. the difference (hours and minutes)
between local time and UTC, inserted between parentheses.
Representation of such a value is in the "[+|-]hhmm" format, where
the first character indicates a positive or negative difference.
4.3. Attachments
This section describes the characteristics of the various components
of messages and notifications generated by a PEC system. If one of
the message parts contains characters with values outside of the
interval 0-127 (7-bit ASCII), that part will have to be adequately
encoded so that 7-bit transportation compatibility is guaranteed
(e.g. quoted-printable, base64).
4.3.1. Message body
Character set: ISO-8859-1 (Latin-1)
MIME type: text/plain or multipart/alternative
The multipart/alternative MIME type MAY be used to add an HTML
version of the body of messages generated by the system. In this
case, two sub-parts MUST be present: one of type text/plain, the
other text/html. The HTML part will HAVE TO respect the following
conditions:
o it MUST contain the same information as related in the text part;
o it MUST NOT contain references to elements (e.g. images, sounds,
font, style sheets) neither internal to the message (added MIME
parts) nor external (e.g. hosted on the provider's server);
o MUST NOT have active content (e.g. JavaScript, VBscript, Plug-in,
ActiveX).
4.3.2. Original message
MIME type: message/rfc822
Attachment name: certmail.eml
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
4.3.3. Certification data
Character set: UTF-8
MIME type: application/xml
Attachment name: certdata.xml
4.4. Certification data scheme
Following is the DTD relative to the XML file that contains
certification data attached to the notifications.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Use the element "postacert" as root-->
<!--"tipo" indicates the typology of the PEC message-->
<!--The attribute "errore" can have the following values-->
<!--"nessuno" = no error-->
<!--"no-dest" (with type="errore-consegna") = -->
<!-- wrong recipient-->
<!--"no-dominio" (with type="errore-consegna") = -->
<!-- wrong domain-->
<!--"virus" (with type="errore-consegna") = virus-->
<!--"virus" (with type="non-accettazione") = virus-->
<!--"altro" = generic error-->
<!ELEMENT postacert (intestazione, dati)>
<!ATTLIST postacert
tipo (accettazione |
non-accettazione |
presa-in-carico |
avvenuta-consegna |
posta-certificata |
errore-consegna |
preavviso-errore-consegna |
rilevazione-virus) #REQUIRED
errore (nessuno |
no-dest |
no-dominio |
virus |
altro) "nessuno">
<!--Header of the original message-->
<!ELEMENT intestazione (mittente,
destinatari+,
risposte,
oggetto?)>
<!--Sender ("From" field) of the original message-->
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
<!ELEMENT mittente (#PCDATA)>
<!--Complete list of recipients ("To" and "Cc" fields)-->
<!--of the original message-->
<!--"tipo" indicates the typology of the recipient-->
<!ELEMENT destinatari (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST destinatari
tipo (certificato | esterno) "certificato">
<!--Value of the "Reply-To" field of the original message-->
<!ELEMENT risposte (#PCDATA)>
<!--Value of the "Subject" field of the original message-->
<!ELEMENT oggetto (#PCDATA)>
<!--PEC message data-->
<!ELEMENT dati (gestore-emittente,
data,
identificativo,
msgid?,
ricevuta?,
consegna?,
ricezione*,
errore-esteso?)>
<!--Descriptive string of the provider that certifies -->
<!--the data-->
<!ELEMENT gestore-emittente (#PCDATA)>
<!--Date/time of message elaboration-->
<!--"zona" is the difference between local time and UTC in -->
<!--"[+|-]hhmm" format-->
<!ELEMENT data (giorno, ora)>
<!ATTLIST data
zona CDATA #REQUIRED>
<!--Day in "dd/mm/yyyy" format-->
<!ELEMENT giorno (#PCDATA)>
<!--Local hour in "hh:mm:ss" format-->
<!ELEMENT ora (#PCDATA)>
<!--PEC msgid-->
<!ELEMENT identificativo (#PCDATA)>
<!--msgid of the original message before modifications-->
<!ELEMENT msgid (#PCDATA)>
<!--For transport envelopes and delivery notifications-->
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
<!--indicate the type of notification requested by the-->
<!-sender-->
<!ELEMENT ricevuta EMPTY>
<!ATTLIST ricevuta
tipo (completa |
breve |
sintetica ) #REQUIRED>
<!--For delivery, non-delivery, virus-induced non-delivery, -->
<!-- virus detection, and timeout notifications-->
<!--Recipient address to which delivery has been carried -->
<!--out/tried-->
<!ELEMENT consegna (#PCDATA)>
<!--For take in charge notifications-->
<!--recipients for whom it is the relative notification-->
<!ELEMENT ricezione (#PCDATA)>
<!--In case of error-->
<!--brief description of the error-->
<!ELEMENT errore-esteso (#PCDATA)>
4.5. PEC providers directory scheme
The PEC providers directory is created through a centralized LDAP
server that contains providers' data and their corresponding PEC
mail domains. The directory's base root is "o=certmail", and the
"DistinguishedName" of single records are of the type,
"providerName=<name>, o=certmail". Search within the directory is
carried out mainly in case-sensitive mode using the
"providerCertificateHash" attributes (during envelope signature
verification phase) or "managedDomains" (during message acceptance
phase). It is possible for the record of a single provider to
contain multiple "providerCertificate", and the corresponding
"providerCertificateHash", attributes in order to allow the handling
of the renewal of expiring certificates. The provider MUST make sure
to update its own record sufficiently beforehand with respect to the
expiration date of the certificate, by adding a new certificate
whose validity overlaps with that of the previous one. The
"LDIFLocationURL" attribute MUST point to an HTTPS object supplied
by the provider, and containing an LDIF file according to [LDIF]. To
guarantee authenticity, the file MUST be signed by the provider for
the operations regarding its PEC services. The LDIF file, the
signature, and the X.509v3 certificate MUST be inserted in a PKCS#7
structure in binary ASN.1 DER format as a file with ".p7m"
extension. The centralized LDAP system downloads such a file on a
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
daily basis, and, after opportune verifications of the appended
signature, it applies it to the record relative to the provider. The
LDIF file that encompasses the data of all the PEC providers is
available, signed using the method described for single providers as
an HTTPS object, and can be found at the URL to which the
"LDIFLocationURL" attribute in the "dn: o=certmail" record points.
Through the LDIF file, single providers HAVE TO keep a local copy of
the directory, updated on a daily basis, in order to improve system
performance by avoiding continuous request dispatches to the central
system for every message elaboration phase.
It is possible for the provider to define several distinct records
to indicate different secondary, administered operating
environments. Every record refers to a single secondary operating
environment for which it is possible to declare specific attributes,
and if need be distinct from those relative to other environments
and to the main environment. All records MUST contain the name of
the provider in the "providerName" attribute, whereas the
"providerUnit" attribute is used to identify the secondary operating
environments. The "DistinguishedName" of the records relative to the
secondary operating environments are of the type
"providerUnit=<environment>,providerName=<name>,o=certmail". Every
provider MUST have a record associated to its own main environment,
distinguishable for the absence of the "providerUnit" attribute
within the record and the DistinguishedName. Records for secondary
environments MUST contain the "LDIFLocationURL" attribute, which is
obtained from the main environment's attribute for all records
connected to the provider. If secondary environments are present,
the LDIF found in the main environment's record MUST hold the
contents of all the provider-relevant records.
Following are the attributes defined for the scheme of the PEC
providers directory:
- providerCertificateHash: IA5 string
Hexadecimal representation of the hash in SHA1 format of the X.509v3
certificate used by the provider for notifications and PEC envelope
signatures.
- providerCertificate: Certificate Binary transfer
Certificate(s) used by the provider for signing notifications and
transport envelopes.
- providerName: Directory string Single value
Name of PEC provider.
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
- mailReceipt: IA5 string Single value
Email address to which take in charge notifications and virus
detection notifications are sent.
- managedDomains: IA5 string
PEC domains handled by the provider.
- LDIFLocationURL: Directory string Single value
HTTPS URL where the definition of the record related to the provider
is maintained in LDIF format. When the attribute is present in the
record "dn: o=postacert", then it contains the definition of the
entire directory in LDIF format.
- providerUnit: Directory string Single value
Name of the secondary operating environment (not available for the
principal environment)
Next is the LDAP scheme for the PEC providers directory according to
the syntax described in [LDAP]:
attributetype ( 16572.2.2.1
NAME 'providerCertificateHash'
DESC 'Hash SHA1 of X.509 certificate in hexadecimal
format'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26{40} )
attributetype ( 16572.2.2.2
NAME 'providerCertificate'
DESC 'X.509 certificate in ASN.1 DER binary format'
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.8 )
attributetype ( 16572.2.2.3
NAME 'providerName'
DESC 'PEC provider'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{32768}
SINGLE-VALUE )
attributetype ( 16572.2.2.4
NAME 'mailReceipt'
DESC 'E-mail address of the service mailbox'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
SUBSTR caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26{256}
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
SINGLE-VALUE )
attributetype ( 16572.2.2.5
NAME 'managedDomains'
DESC 'Domains handled by the PEC provider'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreIA5Match
SUBSTR caseIgnoreIA5SubstringsMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.26 )
attributetype ( 16572.2.2.6
NAME 'LDIFLocationURL'
DESC 'URL of the LDIF file that defines the entry'
EQUALITY caseExactMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15
SINGLE-VALUE )
attributetype ( 16572.2.2.7
NAME 'providerUnit'
DESC 'Name of the secondary operative environment'
EQUALITY caseIgnoreMatch
SUBSTR caseIgnoreSubstringsMatch
SYNTAX 1.3.6.1.4.1.1466.115.121.1.15{32768}
SINGLE-VALUE )
objectclass ( 16572.2.1.1
NAME 'LDIFLocationURLObject'
DESC 'Class for the insertion of a LDIFLocationURL
attribute'
MAY ( LDIFLocationURL )
SUP top AUXILIARY )
objectclass ( 16572.2.1.2
NAME 'provider'
DESC 'PEC provider'
SUP top
MUST ( providerCertificateHash $
providerCertificate $
providerName $
mailReceipt $
managedDomains)
MAY ( description $
LDIFLocationURL $
providerUnit) )
The following LDIF file represents an example of a providers'
directory, containing a base root and 2 fictitious providers.
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
Inserted are two self-signed certificates used for example purposes
only:
dn: o=postacert
objectclass: top
objectclass: organization
objectClass: LDIFLocationURLObject
o: postacert
LDIFLocationURL: https://igpec.rupa.it/igpec.ldif.p7m
description: Base root for the PEC providers directory
dn: providerName=Anonymous Certified Mail S.p.A.,o=postacert
objectclass: top
objectclass: provider
providerName: Anonymous Certified Mail S.p.A.
providerCertificateHash:
7E7AEF1059AE0F454F2643A95F69EC3556009239
providerCertificate;binary::
MIIDBjCCAm+gAwIBAgIBADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBmMQswCQYDVQQGEw
JJVDEpMCcGA1UEChMgQW5vbmltYSBQb3N0YSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0YSBTLnAu
QS4xLDAqBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWHXBvc3RhLWNlcnRpZmljYXRhQGFucG9jZX
J0Lml0MB4XDTAyMTIwOTE3MjQxNVoXDTAzMTIwOTE3MjQxNVowZjELMAkG
A1UEBhMCSVQxKTAnBgNVBAoTIEFub25pbWEgUG9zdGEgQ2VydGlmaWNhdG
EgUy5wLkEuMSwwKgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFh1wb3N0YS1jZXJ0aWZpY2F0YUBh
bnBvY2VydC5pdDCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEAr8J+qK
KdxV9LzDMPqwnEy0P8H/KwbI0Szs8p6UZajZdpeUK0Ncbrv1QyXZNNtSMC
2uL09HDyx8agjgZWdhypnehguiSK3busha15RSpMGhiqxmz2b0HhOG73Gf
alZelqrwqmElna4MNUaLhbOvTd/sqPUS378w5IaIhWxzy34XcCAwEAAaOB
wzCBwDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUN8lC0znQWEs0xspZ/aBzsaGvRZMwgZAGA1UdIw
SBiDCBhYAUN8lC0znQWEs0xspZ/aBzsaGvRZOhaqRoMGYxCzAJBgNVBAYT
AklUMSkwJwYDVQQKEyBBbm9uaW1hIFBvc3RhIENlcnRpZmljYXRhIFMucC
5BLjEsMCoGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYdcG9zdGEtY2VydGlmaWNhdGFAYW5wb2Nl
cnQuaXSCAQAwDAYDVR0TBAUwAwEB/zANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQA58B
Z+q1qSKpuffzTBpMtbeFkDIxMqMa+ycnxdMNvcWgCm1A9ZiFJsvqYhDDqA
XxfHjkrzXuSZkYq6WiQCsLp0aYVy40QCIwbOunhrvsxh3vsG5CgN76JzZ9
5Z/1OCFNhLfqf1VH2NSS8TaYCCi/VO7W1Q1KkcA2VlxlQP7McSUw==
mailReceipt: ricevute@anpocert.it
LDIFLocationURL: https://www.anpocert.it/LDIF/anpocert.ldif.p7m
managedDomains: mail.anpocert.example
managedDomains: cert.company.example
managedDomains: costmec.it
description: Certified mail services for companies
dn: providerName=Postal Services S.p.A,o=postacert
objectclass: top
objectclass: provider
providerName: Postal Services S.p.A
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
providerCertificateHash:
e00fdd9d88be0e2cc766b893315caf93d5701a6a
providerCertificate;binary::
MIIDHjCCAoegAwIBAgIBADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBuMQswCQYDVQQGEw
JJVDEfMB0GA1UEChMWU2Vydml6aSBQb3N0YWxpIFMuci5sLjEPMA0GA1UE
CxMGRC5DLkMuMS0wKwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFh5wb3N0YS1jZXJ0aWZpY2F0YU
BzZXJwb3N0YWwuaXQwHhcNMDIxMjA5MTczMjE2WhcNMDMxMjA5MTczMjE2
WjBuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJVDEfMB0GA1UEChMWU2Vydml6aSBQb3N0YWxpIF
Muci5sLjEPMA0GA1UECxMGRC5DLkMuMS0wKwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFh5wb3N0
YS1jZXJ0aWZpY2F0YUBzZXJwb3N0YWwuaXQwgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQ
ADgY0AMIGJAoGBAKoc7n6zA+sO8NATMcfJ+U2aoDEsrj/cObG3QAN6Sr+l
ygWxYXLBZNfSDWqL1K4edLr4gCZIDFsq0PIEaYZhYRGjhbcuJ9H/ZdtWdX
xcwEWN4mwFzlsASogsh5JeqS8db3A1JWkvhO9EUfaCYk8YMAkXYdCtLD9s
9tCYZeTE2ut9AgMBAAGjgcswgcgwHQYDVR0OBBYEFHPw7VJIoIM3VYhuHa
eAwpPF5leMMIGYBgNVHSMEgZAwgY2AFHPw7VJIoIM3VYhuHaeAwpPF5leM
oXKkcDBuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJVDEfMB0GA1UEChMWU2Vydml6aSBQb3N0YW
xpIFMuci5sLjEPMA0GA1UECxMGRC5DLkMuMS0wKwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFh5w
b3N0YS1jZXJ0aWZpY2F0YUBzZXJwb3N0YWwuaXSCAQAwDAYDVR0TBAUwAw
EB/zANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQApqeXvmOyEjwhMrXezPAXELMZwv4qq
r5ri4XuxTq6sS9jRsEbZrS+NmbcJ7S7eFwNQMNxYFVJqdWoLh8qExsTLXn
sKycSnHbCfuphrKvXjQvR2da75U4zGSkroiyvJ2s9TtiCcT3lQtIjmvrFb
aSBiyzj+za7foFUCQmxCLtDaA==
mailReceipt: takecharge@postalser.it
LDIFLocationURL: https://services.postalser.it/ldif.txt.p7m
managedDomains: postal-services.it
managedDomains: receivedmail.it
description: Certified mail services for the public
The following LDIF file represents an example of a PEC providers'
directory, containing a base root and 2 fictitious providers, the
first of which handles a secondary environment as well. The
certificates inserted are 2 self-signed certificates used for
example purposes only:
dn: o=postacert
objectclass: top
objectclass: organization
objectClass: LDIFLocationURLObject
o: postacert
LDIFLocationURL: https://igpec.rupa.it/igpec.ldif.p7m
description: Base root for the PEC providers directory
dn: providerName=Anonymous Certified Mail S.p.A.,o=postacert
objectclass: top
objectclass: provider
providerName: Anonymous Certified Mail S.p.A.
providerCertificateHash:
7E7AEF1059AE0F454F2643A95F69EC3556009239
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
providerCertificate;binary::
MIIDBjCCAm+gAwIBAgIBADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBmMQswCQYDVQQGEw
JJVDEpMCcGA1UEChMgQW5vbmltYSBQb3N0YSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0YSBTLnAu
QS4xLDAqBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWHXBvc3RhLWNlcnRpZmljYXRhQGFucG9jZX
J0Lml0MB4XDTAyMTIwOTE3MjQxNVoXDTAzMTIwOTE3MjQxNVowZjELMAkG
A1UEBhMCSVQxKTAnBgNVBAoTIEFub25pbWEgUG9zdGEgQ2VydGlmaWNhdG
EgUy5wLkEuMSwwKgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFh1wb3N0YS1jZXJ0aWZpY2F0YUBh
bnBvY2VydC5pdDCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEAr8J+qK
KdxV9LzDMPqwnEy0P8H/KwbI0Szs8p6UZajZdpeUK0Ncbrv1QyXZNNtSMC
2uL09HDyx8agjgZWdhypnehguiSK3busha15RSpMGhiqxmz2b0HhOG73Gf
alZelqrwqmElna4MNUaLhbOvTd/sqPUS378w5IaIhWxzy34XcCAwEAAaOB
wzCBwDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUN8lC0znQWEs0xspZ/aBzsaGvRZMwgZAGA1UdIw
SBiDCBhYAUN8lC0znQWEs0xspZ/aBzsaGvRZOhaqRoMGYxCzAJBgNVBAYT
AklUMSkwJwYDVQQKEyBBbm9uaW1hIFBvc3RhIENlcnRpZmljYXRhIFMucC
5BLjEsMCoGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYdcG9zdGEtY2VydGlmaWNhdGFAYW5wb2Nl
cnQuaXSCAQAwDAYDVR0TBAUwAwEB/zANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQA58B
Z+q1qSKpuffzTBpMtbeFkDIxMqMa+ycnxdMNvcWgCm1A9ZiFJsvqYhDDqA
XxfHjkrzXuSZkYq6WiQCsLp0aYVy40QCIwbOunhrvsxh3vsG5CgN76JzZ9
5Z/1OCFNhLfqf1VH2NSS8TaYCCi/VO7W1Q1KkcA2VlxlQP7McSUw==
mailReceipt: notifications@anpocert.it
LDIFLocationURL: http://www.anpocert.it/LDIF/anpocert.ldif.p7m
managedDomains: mail.anpocert.example
managedDomains: cert.company.example
managedDomains: costmec.it
description: Certified mail services for companies
dn: providerUnit=Secondary Environment, providerName=Anonymous
Certified Mail S.p.A.,o=postacert
objectclass: top
objectclass: provider
providerName: Certified Mail S.p.A.
providerUnit: Secondary Environment
providerCertificateHash:
7E7AEF1059AE0F454F2643A95F69EC3556009239
providerCertificate;binary::
MIIDBjCCAm+gAwIBAgIBADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBmMQswCQYDVQQGEw
JJVDEpMCcGA1UEChMgQW5vbmltYSBQb3N0YSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0YSBTLnAu
QS4xLDAqBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWHXBvc3RhLWNlcnRpZmljYXRhQGFucG9jZX
J0Lml0MB4XDTAyMTIwOTE3MjQxNVoXDTAzMTIwOTE3MjQxNVowZjELMAkG
A1UEBhMCSVQxKTAnBgNVBAoTIEFub25pbWEgUG9zdGEgQ2VydGlmaWNhdG
EgUy5wLkEuMSwwKgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFh1wb3N0YS1jZXJ0aWZpY2F0YUBh
bnBvY2VydC5pdDCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEAr8J+qK
KdxV9LzDMPqwnEy0P8H/KwbI0Szs8p6UZajZdpeUK0Ncbrv1QyXZNNtSMC
2uL09HDyx8agjgZWdhypnehguiSK3busha15RSpMGhiqxmz2b0HhOG73Gf
alZelqrwqmElna4MNUaLhbOvTd/sqPUS378w5IaIhWxzy34XcCAwEAAaOB
wzCBwDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUN8lC0znQWEs0xspZ/aBzsaGvRZMwgZAGA1UdIw
SBiDCBhYAUN8lC0znQWEs0xspZ/aBzsaGvRZOhaqRoMGYxCzAJBgNVBAYT
AklUMSkwJwYDVQQKEyBBbm9uaW1hIFBvc3RhIENlcnRpZmljYXRhIFMucC
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
5BLjEsMCoGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYdcG9zdGEtY2VydGlmaWNhdGFAYW5wb2Nl
cnQuaXSCAQAwDAYDVR0TBAUwAwEB/zANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQA58B
Z+q1qSKpuffzTBpMtbeFkDIxMqMa+ycnxdMNvcWgCm1A9ZiFJsvqYhDDqA
XxfHjkrzXuSZkYq6WiQCsLp0aYVy40QCIwbOunhrvsxh3vsG5CgN76JzZ9
5Z/1OCFNhLfqf1VH2NSS8TaYCCi/VO7W1Q1KkcA2VlxlQP7McSUw==
mailReceipt: notifications@secondary.anpocert.it
managedDomains: management.anpocert.example
managedDomains: personnel.anpocert.example
description: Corporate internal services
dn: providerName=Postal Services S.r.l.,o=postacert
objectclass: top
objectclass: provider
providerName: Postal Services S.r.l.
providerCertificateHash:
e00fdd9d88be0e2cc766b893315caf93d5701a6a
providerCertificate;binary::
MIIDHjCCAoegAwIBAgIBADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBuMQswCQYDVQQGEw
JJVDEfMB0GA1UEChMWU2Vydml6aSBQb3N0YWxpIFMuci5sLjEPMA0GA1UE
CxMGRC5DLkMuMS0wKwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFh5wb3N0YS1jZXJ0aWZpY2F0YU
BzZXJwb3N0YWwuaXQwHhcNMDIxMjA5MTczMjE2WhcNMDMxMjA5MTczMjE2
WjBuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJVDEfMB0GA1UEChMWU2Vydml6aSBQb3N0YWxpIF
Muci5sLjEPMA0GA1UECxMGRC5DLkMuMS0wKwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFh5wb3N0
YS1jZXJ0aWZpY2F0YUBzZXJwb3N0YWwuaXQwgZ8wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQ
ADgY0AMIGJAoGBAKoc7n6zA+sO8NATMcfJ+U2aoDEsrj/cObG3QAN6Sr+l
ygWxYXLBZNfSDWqL1K4edLr4gCZIDFsq0PIEaYZhYRGjhbcuJ9H/ZdtWdX
xcwEWN4mwFzlsASogsh5JeqS8db3A1JWkvhO9EUfaCYk8YMAkXYdCtLD9s
9tCYZeTE2ut9AgMBAAGjgcswgcgwHQYDVR0OBBYEFHPw7VJIoIM3VYhuHa
eAwpPF5leMMIGYBgNVHSMEgZAwgY2AFHPw7VJIoIM3VYhuHaeAwpPF5leM
oXKkcDBuMQswCQYDVQQGEwJJVDEfMB0GA1UEChMWU2Vydml6aSBQb3N0YW
xpIFMuci5sLjEPMA0GA1UECxMGRC5DLkMuMS0wKwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFh5w
b3N0YS1jZXJ0aWZpY2F0YUBzZXJwb3N0YWwuaXSCAQAwDAYDVR0TBAUwAw
EB/zANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQApqeXvmOyEjwhMrXezPAXELMZwv4qq
r5ri4XuxTq6sS9jRsEbZrS+NmbcJ7S7eFwNQMNxYFVJqdWoLh8qExsTLXn
sKycPSnHbCfuphrKvXjQvR2da75U4zGSkroiyvJ2s9TtiCcT3lQtIjmvrF
baSBiyzj+za7foFUCQmxCLtDaA==
mailReceipt: takecharge@postalser.it
LDIFLocationURL: http://services.postalser.it/ldif.txt.p7m
managedDomains: postal-services.it
managedDomains: receivedmail.it
description: Certified mail services for the public
5. Example: Complete transaction between 2 PEC domains
A correct transaction between 2 PEC domains goes through the
following steps:
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
o The sending user sends an email to his provider's Access Point;
o The Access Point runs all checks and emits an acceptance
notification to the user;
o The Access Point creates a transport envelope and forwards it to
the Incoming Point of the receiving provider;
o The receiver's Incoming Point verifies the transport envelope and
creates a take in charge notification to be sent to the sending
provider;
o The sender's Incoming Point verifies the validity of the take in
charge notification and forwards it to the Delivery Point;
o The sender's Delivery Point saves the take in charge notification
in the provider's service mailbox;
o The receiver's Incoming Point forwards the transport envelope to
the receiver's Delivery Point;
o The receiver's Delivery Point verifies the contents of the
transport envelope and saves it in the recipient's mailbox;
o The receiver's Delivery Point creates a delivery notification and
sends it to the sender's Incoming Point;
o The sender's Incoming Point verifies the validity of the delivery
notification and forwards it to the sender's Delivery Point;
o The sender's Delivery Point saves the delivery notification in
the sending user's mailbox;
o The receiving user has the message at his disposition.
6. Security-related aspects
6.1. Digital signature
The private key and signature operations MUST be handled using a
dedicated hardware security module (FIPS 140-2) which is able to
guarantee their security in compliance with the criteria adopted in
the European or international setting.
6.2. Authentication
User access to PEC services through the access point MUST be allowed
upon authentication on the system by the user himself. For example,
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
authentication modalities might use user-ID and password, or, if
available and considered necessary for the type of service provided,
the electronic ID card or the national services card. Choice of
authentication modality is left to the better judgment of the
service provider. Authentication is necessary to guarantee, as much
as possible, that the message is sent by a PEC user, whose
identification data is congruent with the specified sender, so as to
avoid falsification of the latter.
6.3. Secure interaction
In order to guarantee that the original message doesn't change
during the interaction, envelopment of and signature application on
outgoing messages is done at the access point, and the subsequent
verification of incoming messages is done at the incoming point. The
original message is inserted as attachment within a transport
envelope. The transport envelope signed by the sending provider
permits to verify that the original message hasn't been modified
during its transition from sender domain to receiver domain.
All communications within the PEC network MUST use secure channels,
and integrity and confidentiality of the connections between the PEC
provider and the user MUST be guaranteed through the use of secure
protocols, such as those based on TLS and those that create a secure
transport channel on which non-secure protocols are conveyed (e.g.
IPSec).
The interaction between providers MUST take place using SMTP on TLS,
as per [SMTP-TLS]. The incoming point MUST provide and announce its
support for the STARTTLS extension, as well as accept both
unencrypted connections (for ordinary mail) and protected ones.
To guarantee complete traceability in the flow of PEC messages,
these MUST NOT transit on systems external to the PEC circuit. When
exchanging messages between different providers, all transactions
MUST take place between machines that belong to the PEC circuit, or
those directly managed by the provider. Secondary PEC messages
reception systems, if present, MUST be under direct control of the
provider. An "MX" type record MUST be associated to each PEC domain,
defined within the system for name resolution.
6.4. Virus
Another important security aspect, that concerns the entire PEC
system, is related to the technical and functional architecture
which MUST block the presence of viruses from endangering the
security of all handled messages; it is therefore REQUIRED to have
installations and continuous updates of anti-virus systems that
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
hinder infections as much as possible, without intervening on the
content of the certified mail, in compliance with what has been
discussed thus far.
6.5. S/MIME certificate
In this document the S/MIME certificate profile is defined for use
in the certification of PEC messages done by the providers. The
proposed profile of the S/MIME certificate is based on the IETF
standards [SMIMECERT] and [X509], which in turn are based on the
standard ISO/IEC 9594-8:2001.
6.5.1. Provider-related information (subject)
The information related to the PEC provider holder of the
certificate MUST be inserted in the "Subject:" field (Subject DN).
More precisely, the Subject DN MUST contain the PEC provider's name
as it is in the "providerName" attribute published in the PEC
providers directory (section 4.5). The providerName MUST be present
in the CommonName or OrganizationName attributes of the Subject
field in the certificate.
Certificates MUST contain an Internet mail address, which MUST have
a value in the subjectAltName extension, and SHOULD NOT be present
in the Subject Distinguished Name.
Valid subjectDN are:
C=IT, O=AcmePEC S.p.A, CN=Posta Certificata
C=IT, O=ServiziPEC S.p.A, CN=Posta Certificata
Valorization of other attributes in the Subject DN, if present, MUST
be done in compliance with [X509].
6.5.2. Certificate extensions
Extensions that MUST be present in the S/MIME certificate are:
o Key Usage
o Authority Key Identifier
o Subject Key Identifier
o Subject Alternative Name
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
The Basic Constraints extension (Object ID:2.5.29.19) MUST NOT be
present.
The valorization of the above listed extensions for the described
profile follows.
The Key Usage extension (Object ID: 2.5.29.15) MUST have the
digitalSignature bit (bit 0) activated and MUST be marked as
critical. The extension MAY contain other active bits corresponding
to different Key Usage, as long as that doesn't contrast with the
indications in [X509].
The Authority Key Identifier (Object ID:2.5.29.35) MUST contain at
least the keyIdentifier field, and MUST NOT be marked as critical.
The Subject Key Identifier extension (Object ID: 2.5.29.14) MUST
contain at least the keyIdentifier field, and MUST NOT be marked as
critical.
The Subject Alternative Name (Object ID: 2.5.29.17) MUST contain at
least the rfc822Name field, and MUST NOT be marked as critical.
Adding other extensions that have not been described in this
document is to be considered OPTIONAL, as long as it remains
compliant with [X509]; such added extension MUST NOT be marked as
critical.
6.5.3. Example
Following is an example of an S/MIME certificate compliant with the
minimal requisites described in this profile. Values used are of
fictitious providers generated for example purposes only.
6.5.3.1. General-use certificate in annotated version
An asterisk near the label of an extension means that such an
extension has been marked as critical.
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
VERSION: 3
SERIAL: 11226 (0x2bda)
INNER SIGNATURE:
ALG. ID: id-sha1-with-rsa-encryption
PARAMETER: 0
ISSUER:
Country Name: IT
Organization Name: Certifier 1
Organizational Unit Name: Certification Service Provider
Common Name: Certifier S.p.A.
VALIDITY:
Not Before: Oct 5, 04 09:04:23 GMT
Not After: Oct 5, 05 09:04:23 GMT
SUBJECT:
Country Name: IT
Organization Name: AcmePEC S.p.A.
Common Name: Certified Mail
PUBLIC KEY: (key size is 1024 bits)
ALGORITHM:
ALG. ID: id-rsa-encryption
PARAMETER: 0
|MODULUS: 0x00afbeb4 5563198a aa9bac3f 1b29b5be
| 7f691945 89d01569 ca0d555b 5c33d7e9
| ...
| d15ff128 6792def5 b3f884e6 54b326db
| cf
|EXPONENT: 0x010001
|EXTENSIONS:
| Subject Alt Name:
| RFC Name: posta-certificata@acmepec.it
| Key Usage*: Digital Signature
| Authority Key Identifier: 0x12345678 aaaaaaaa bbbbbbbb cccccccc
dddddddd
| Subject Key Identifier: 0x3afae080 6453527a 3e5709d8 49a941a8
a3a70ae1
|SIGNATURE:
ALG. ID: id-sha1-with-rsa-encryption
PARAMETER: 0
VALUE: 0x874b4d25 70a46180 c9770a85 fe7923ce
b22d2955 2f3af207 142b2aba 643aaa61
...
d8fd10b4 c9e00ebc c089f7a3 549a1907
ff885220 ce796328 b0f8ecac 86ffb1cc
6.5.3.2. General-use certificate in dump asn.1
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
0 30 794: SEQUENCE {
4 30 514: SEQUENCE {
8 A0 3: [0] {
10 02 1: INTEGER 2
: }
13 02 2: INTEGER 11226
17 30 13: SEQUENCE {
19 06 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER
: sha1withRSAEncryption (1 2 840 113549 1 1 5)
30 05 0: NULL
: }
32 30 101: SEQUENCE {
34 31 11: SET {
36 30 9: SEQUENCE {
38 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER countryName (2 5 4 6)
43 13 2: PrintableString 'IT'
: }
: }
47 31 28: SET {
49 30 26: SEQUENCE {
51 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER organizationName (2 5 4 10)
56 13 19: PrintableString 'Certificatore 1'
: }
: }
77 31 22: SET {
79 30 20: SEQUENCE {
81 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER organizationalUnitName (2 5
4
11)
86 13 13: PrintableString 'Certification Service
Provider'
: }
: }
101 31 32: SET {
103 30 30: SEQUENCE {
105 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER commonName (2 5 4 3)
110 13 23: PrintableString 'Certificatore S.p.A.'
: }
: }
: }
135 30 30: SEQUENCE {
137 17 13: UTCTime '041005090423Z'
152 17 13: UTCTime '051005090423Z'
: }
167 30 66: SEQUENCE {
169 31 11: SET {
171 30 9: SEQUENCE {
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
173 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER countryName (2 5 4 6)
178 13 2: PrintableString 'IT'
: }
: }
182 31 23: SET {
184 30 21: SEQUENCE {
186 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER organizationName (2 5 4 10)
191 13 14: PrintableString 'AcmePEC S.p.A.'
: }
: }
207 31 26: SET {
209 30 24: SEQUENCE {
211 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER commonName (2 5 4 3)
216 13 17: PrintableString 'Posta Certificata'
: }
: }
: }
235 30 159: SEQUENCE {
238 30 13: SEQUENCE {
240 06 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER rsaEncryption (1 2 840 113549
1 1
1)
251 05 0: NULL
: }
253 03 141: BIT STRING 0 unused bits
: 30 81 89 02 81 81 00 AF BE B4 55 63 19 8A AA 9B
: AC 3F 1B 29 B5 BE 7F 69 19 45 89 D0 15 69 CA 0D
: 55 5B 5C 33 D7 E9 C8 6E FC 14 46 C3 C3 09 47 DD
: CD 10 74 1D 76 4E 71 14 E7 69 42 BE 1C 47 61 85
: 4D 74 76 DD 0B B5 78 4F 1E 84 DD B4 86 7F 96 DF
: 5E 7B AF 0E CE EA 12 57 0B DF 9B 63 67 4D F9 37
: B7 48 35 27 C2 89 F3 C3 54 66 F7 DA 6C BE 4F 5D
: 85 55 07 A4 97 8C D1 5F F1 28 67 92 DE F5 B3 F8
: [ Another 12 bytes skipped ]
: }
397 A3 123: [3] {
399 30 121: SEQUENCE {
401 30 39: SEQUENCE {
403 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER subjectAltName (2 5 29 17)
408 04 32: OCTET STRING
: 30 1E 81 1C 70 6F 73 74 61 2D 63 65 72 74 69 66
: 69 63 61 74 61 40 61 63 6D 65 70 65 63 2E 69 74
: }
442 30 14: SEQUENCE {
444 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER keyUsage (2 5 29 15)
449 01 1: BOOLEAN TRUE
452 04 4: OCTET STRING
: 03 02 07 80
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
: }
458 30 31: SEQUENCE {
460 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER authorityKeyIdentifier (2 5
29 35)
465 04 24: OCTET STRING
: 30 16 11 11 11 11 AA AA AA AA AA BB BB BB BB CC
CC
: CC CC DD DD DD DD
: }
491 30 29: SEQUENCE {
493 06 3: OBJECT IDENTIFIER subjectKeyIdentifier (2 5
29
14)
498 04 22: OCTET STRING
: 04 14 3A FA E0 80 64 53 52 7A 3E 57 09 D8 49 A9
: 41 A8 A3 A7 0A E1
: }
: }
: }
: }
522 30 13: SEQUENCE {
524 06 9: OBJECT IDENTIFIER
: sha1withRSAEncryption (1 2 840 113549 1 1 5)
535 05 0: NULL
: }
537 03 257: BIT STRING 0 unused bits
: 87 4B 4D 25 70 A4 61 80 C9 77 0A 85 FE 79 23 CE
: B2 2D 29 55 2F 3A F2 07 14 2B 2A BA 64 3A AA 61
: 1F F0 E7 3F C4 E6 13 E2 09 3D F0 E1 83 A0 C0 F2
: C6 71 7F 3A 1C 80 7F 15 B3 D6 1E 22 79 B8 AC 91
: 51 83 F2 3A 84 86 B6 07 2B 22 E8 01 52 2D A4 50
: 9F C6 42 D4 7C 38 B1 DD 88 CD FC E8 C3 12 C3 62
: 64 0F 16 BF 70 15 BC 01 16 78 30 2A DA FA F3 70
: E2 D3 0F 00 B0 FD 92 11 6C 55 45 48 F5 64 ED 98
: [ Another 128 bytes skipped ]
: }
6.6. PEC providers directory
The contents of the PEC providers directory can be queried via HTTP
on SSL exclusively by licensed providers that have the necessary
user certificates; this access modality guarantees authenticity,
integrity and discretion of data.
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
7. PEC system client technical and functional prerequisites
This section lists the prerequisites that must be respected by a
client in order to guarantee the minimal operative functionalities
to the user of a general PEC system:
o handling of access and delivery points through secure channels;
o handling of user authentication in message dispatch and reception
phases;
o support for MIME format according to [MIME1] and [MIME5];
o handling of media type "message.rfc822";
o support for "ISO-8859-1 (Latin-1)" character set;
o support for S/MIME v3 standard, as in [SMIMEV3], for verification
of signatures applied to envelopes and notifications.
8. Security Considerations
All security considerations from [CMS] and [SMIMEV3] apply to
applications that use procedures described in this document.
The centralized LDAP server is a critical point for the security of
the whole PEC system. An attack could compromise the whole PEC
system. PEC providers that periodically download the LDIF file
SHOULD use the best security technology to protect it from local
attacks. A PEC provider could be compromised if an attacker changed
a certificate or modified the list of domains associated to it in
the LDIF file that was copied to the PEC provider system.
When verifying the validity of the signature of a message, the
recipient system SHOULD verify that the certificate included in the
[CMS] message is present in the LDIF file (section 4.5), and that
the domain extracted by the [EMAIL] "From:" header is listed in the
managedDomains attribute associated to said certificate.
A Hardware Security Module compliant with the FIPS-140-2 is REQUIRED
to store the private key of each PEC provider.
9. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any consideration from the IANA.
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[CMS] Housley, R., "Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC
3852, Vigil Security, July 2004
[EMAIL] P. Resnick, Editor, "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322,
QUALCOM Incorporated, April 2001
[LDAP] Legg, S., Editor, "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP): Syntaxes and Matching Rules", RFC 4517, eB2Bcom,
June 2006
[LDIF] Good, G., "The LDAP Data Interchange Format (LDIF) -
Technical Specification", RFC 2849, iPlanet e-commerce
Solutions, June 2000
[MIME1] Freed, N., and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996
[MIME5] Freed, N., and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and
Examples", RFC 2049, November 1996
[REQ] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Harvard University,
March 1997
[SHA1] Eastlake, D., and P. Jones, "US Secure Hash Algorithm 1
(SHA1)", RFC 3174, September 2001
[MIME-SECURE] Galvin, J., S. Murphy, S. Crocker, and N. Freed
"Security Multiparts for MIME: Multipart/Signed and
Multipart/Encrypted", RFC 1847, October 1995
[SMIMEV3] Ramsdell, B. Editor, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specifications",
RFC 3851, Sendmail, Inc., July 2004
[SMIMECERT] Ramsdell, B., Editor, "Secure/Multipurpose internet Mail
Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Certificate Handling",
RFC 3850, Sendmail, Inc., July 2004
[SMTP] Klensin, J. Editor, "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC
5321, AT&T Laboratories, April 2001
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
[SMTP-DSN] Moore, K., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service
Extension for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs)", RFC
3461, University of Tennessee, January 2003
[SMTP-TLS] Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over
Transport Layer Security", RFC 3207, Internet Mail
Consortium, February 2002
[X509] Cooper, D., S. Santesson, S. Farrell, S. Boeyen, R.
Housley, and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008
11. Acknowledgments
The Italian document, on which the present document is based, is a
product of the collaboration of many, with the supervision of the
National Center for Informatics in the Public Administration of
Italy (CNIPA).
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
APPENDIX A: Italian fields and values in English
X-Riferimento-Message-ID X-Reference-Message-ID
X-Ricevuta X-Notification
non-accettazione non-acceptance
accettazione acceptance
preavviso-errore-consegna advance-notice-delivery-error
presa-in-carico take-charge
rilevazione-virus virus-detection
errore-consegna delivery-error
avvenuta-consegna message-delivered
X-VerificaSicurezza X-SecurityVerification
X-Trasporto X-Transport
posta-certificata certified-mail
errore error
X-VerificaSicurezza X-SecurityVerification
errore error
X-TipoRicevuta X-NotificationType
completa complete
breve brief
sintetica concise
certificatore certificator
Subject values:
Accettazione ACCEPTANCE
Posta certificata CERTIFIED MAIL
Presa in carico TAKE IN CHARGE
Consegna DELIVERY
Anomalia messaggio MESSAGE ANOMALY
Problema di sicurezza SECURITY PROBLEM
Avviso di non accettazione NON-ACCEPTANCE
NOTIFICATION
Avviso di non accettazione per virus VIRUS DETECTION INDUCED
NON
-ACCEPTANCE NOTIFICATION
Avviso di mancata consegna NON-DELIVERY NOTIFICATION
Avviso di mancata consegna per virus NON-DELIVERY NOTIFICATION
DUE TO VIRUS
Avviso di mancata consegna per sup. NON-DELIVERY NOTIFICATION
tempo massimo DUE TO TIMEOUT
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft Certified Electronic Mail February 2009
Authors' Addresses
Francesco Gennai
ISTI-CNR
Via Moruzzi, 1
56126 Pisa
Italy
Email: francesco.gennai@isti.cnr.it
Alba Shahin
ISTI-CNR
Via Moruzzi, 1
56126 Pisa
Italy
Email: alba.shahin@isti.cnr.it
Claudio Petrucci
CNIPA
Via Isonzo 21/B
00198 Roma
Italy
Email: c.petrucci@cnipa.it
Alessandro Vinciarelli
CNIPA
Via Isonzo 21/B
00198 Roma
Italy
Email: alessandro.vinciarelli@cnipa.it
Gennai et al. Expires August 8, 2009 [Page 60]