Re: [mile] Mail fields

["Harrington, Christopher" <[e-mail]>]

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

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

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

Thanks,

--Chris


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

Hi,

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

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

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

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