[Bro-Dev] [JIRA] (BIT-1525) Support Internet Message Format for SMTP
Seth Hall (JIRA)
jira at bro-tracker.atlassian.net
Thu Jan 21 07:47:00 PST 2016
[ https://bro-tracker.atlassian.net/browse/BIT-1525?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Seth Hall reassigned BIT-1525:
Assignee: Seth Hall
> Support Internet Message Format for SMTP
> Key: BIT-1525
> URL: https://bro-tracker.atlassian.net/browse/BIT-1525
> Project: Bro Issue Tracker
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Bro
> Affects Versions: git/master
> Environment: All
> Reporter: Jan Grashoefer
> Assignee: Seth Hall
> Priority: Low
> Labels: SMTP, analyzer
> Having a look at an [issue|https://bro-tracker.atlassian.net/browse/BIT-1507?focusedCommentId=23300&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-23300] I noticed problem with SMTP: Bro assumes that e.g. the To-field contains a comma-separated list of mail-addresses. According to [RFC 5322|https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.3] there is also the possibility to use groups (see below).
> To: "Test Group":<member1 at example.com>,<member2 at example.com>;
> Regarding groups I am not sure whether they can be nested. If I am not mistaken, the [grammar|https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.4] in the RFC would allow nested groups. But in my understanding this is not desired for the Destination Address Fields:
> the field name, which is either "To", "Cc", or "Bcc", followed by a comma-separated list of one or more addresses (either mailbox or group syntax)
> That leads to two questions:
> # Would it be sufficient for Bro to log just the addresses (usually whats inside < and >) without description (quoted with " )?
> # Should Bro support nested group-syntax?
> I think option 1 (just log the plain addresses) should be sufficient, because if someone is interested in more details, one could have a look at the raw headers.
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
More information about the bro-dev