Initial commit: umbrella design for abusectl

An abuse reporting sidecar for phishing mail: parse a flagged message,
extract its indicators, resolve abuse contacts, and file the result to a
MISP instance and to public abuse channels.

This is the umbrella spec, agreed in one design session. Each part gets
its own spec before it is built; this settles what the parts share and
what would be expensive to change later: the case directory and its
manifest format, the redaction rule, the ordering between MISP and the
vendors, and how partial failure is recorded.

It exists as a separate tool because qtmaildir does no network protocol
work by design, and this needs RDAP, three vendor APIs and mail to abuse
desks. qtmaildir invokes it by name the way it invokes mailsync.sh, and
hosts the review dialog; the two are coupled only by the manifest format
and a command name in config.

Two properties are recorded as safety properties rather than
preferences. Recipient identifiers are never captured, at extraction
rather than at submission, so the tool cannot disclose an identifier it
was never given; tracking tokens inside URLs are covered, since a
parameter value is frequently the recipient's address. And nothing
remote is fetched while parsing, because following a link confirms the
address is live and fires the tracker.

parse is the first part to build: stdlib only, no network, no config,
and its output is the format every other part reads.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01KphFXTc2QajxXsHWyvGJ4R

4 files changed, 839 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bd7777f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+__pycache__/
+*.pyc
+.venv/
+venv/
+HANDOFF.md
diff --git a/LICENSE b/LICENSE
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9efa6fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE
@@ -0,0 +1,338 @@
+                    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
+                       Version 2, June 1991
+
+ Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
+ <https://fsf.org/>
+ Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
+ of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
+
+                            Preamble
+
+  The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
+freedom to share and change it.  By contrast, the GNU General Public
+License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
+software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.  This
+General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
+Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
+using it.  (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
+the GNU Lesser General Public License instead.)  You can apply it to
+your programs, too.
+
+  When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
+price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
+have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
+this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
+if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
+in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
+
+  To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
+anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
+These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
+distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
+
+  For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
+gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
+you have.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
+source code.  And you must show them these terms so they know their
+rights.
+
+  We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
+(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
+distribute and/or modify the software.
+
+  Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
+that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
+software.  If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
+want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
+that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
+authors' reputations.
+
+  Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
+patents.  We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
+program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
+program proprietary.  To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
+patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
+
+  The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
+modification follow.
+
+                    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
+   TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
+
+  0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
+a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
+under the terms of this General Public License.  The "Program", below,
+refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
+means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
+that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
+either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
+language.  (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
+the term "modification".)  Each licensee is addressed as "you".
+
+Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
+covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of
+running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
+is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
+Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
+Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
+
+  1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
+source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
+conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
+copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
+notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
+and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
+along with the Program.
+
+You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
+you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
+
+  2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
+of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
+distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
+above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
+
+    a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
+    stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
+
+    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
+    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
+    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
+    parties under the terms of this License.
+
+    c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
+    when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
+    interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
+    announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
+    notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
+    a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
+    these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
+    License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
+    does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
+    the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
+
+These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
+identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
+and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
+themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
+sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
+distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
+on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
+this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
+entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
+
+Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
+your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
+exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
+collective works based on the Program.
+
+In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
+with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
+a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
+the scope of this License.
+
+  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
+under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
+Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
+
+    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
+    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
+    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
+
+    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
+    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
+    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
+    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
+    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
+    customarily used for software interchange; or,
+
+    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
+    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
+    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
+    received the program in object code or executable form with such
+    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
+
+The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
+making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
+code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
+associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
+control compilation and installation of the executable.  However, as a
+special exception, the source code distributed need not include
+anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
+form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
+operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
+itself accompanies the executable.
+
+If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
+access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
+access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
+distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
+compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
+
+  4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
+except as expressly provided under this License.  Any attempt
+otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
+void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
+However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
+this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
+parties remain in full compliance.
+
+  5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
+signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
+distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
+prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
+modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
+Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
+all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
+the Program or works based on it.
+
+  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
+Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
+original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
+these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
+restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
+You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
+this License.
+
+  7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
+infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
+conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
+otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
+excuse you from the conditions of this License.  If you cannot
+distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
+License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
+may not distribute the Program at all.  For example, if a patent
+license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
+all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
+the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
+refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
+
+If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
+any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
+apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
+circumstances.
+
+It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
+patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
+such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
+integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
+implemented by public license practices.  Many people have made
+generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
+through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
+system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
+to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
+impose that choice.
+
+This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
+be a consequence of the rest of this License.
+
+  8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
+certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
+original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
+may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
+those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
+countries not thus excluded.  In such case, this License incorporates
+the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
+
+  9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
+of the General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions will
+be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
+address new problems or concerns.
+
+Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Program
+specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
+later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
+either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
+Software Foundation.  If the Program does not specify a version number of
+this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
+Foundation.
+
+  10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
+programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
+to ask for permission.  For software which is copyrighted by the Free
+Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
+make exceptions for this.  Our decision will be guided by the two goals
+of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
+of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
+
+                            NO WARRANTY
+
+  11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
+FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.  EXCEPT WHEN
+OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
+PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
+OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  THE ENTIRE RISK AS
+TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU.  SHOULD THE
+PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
+REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
+
+  12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
+WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
+REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
+INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
+OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
+TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
+YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
+PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
+POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
+
+                     END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
+
+            How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
+
+  If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
+possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
+free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.
+
+  To do so, attach the following notices to the program.  It is safest
+to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
+convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
+the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
+
+    <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
+    Copyright (C) <year>  <name of author>
+
+    This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+    the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+    (at your option) any later version.
+
+    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+    GNU General Public License for more details.
+
+    You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
+    with this program; if not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
+
+Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
+
+If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
+when it starts in an interactive mode:
+
+    Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) year name of author
+    Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
+    This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
+    under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
+
+The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
+parts of the General Public License.  Of course, the commands you use may
+be called something other than `show w' and `show c'; they could even be
+mouse-clicks or menu items--whatever suits your program.
+
+You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
+school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if
+necessary.  Here is a sample; alter the names:
+
+  Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program
+  `Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker.
+
+  <signature of Moe Ghoul>, 1 April 1989
+  Moe Ghoul, President of Vice
+
+This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
+proprietary programs.  If your program is a subroutine library, you may
+consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
+library.  If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Lesser General
+Public License instead of this License.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..78eb42f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+# abusectl
+
+Abuse reporting for phishing mail. Parses a flagged message, extracts its
+indicators, resolves who to report each one to, and files the result to a
+MISP instance and to public abuse channels.
+
+**Status: early.** The design is settled and the first part is being built.
+Nothing here submits anything yet.
+
+## What it does
+
+```
+abusectl parse msg.eml        # -> case directory, IOCs      offline
+abusectl contacts <case>      # + abuse contacts via RDAP    network, read-only
+abusectl report <case>        # + report bodies              offline
+      # review the bodies, by hand or in a mail client
+abusectl submit <case>        # MISP, then the vendors       network, writes
+```
+
+Each subcommand runs on its own and is useful on its own. `parse` triages a
+message with no configuration at all; `parse`, `contacts` and `report`
+together produce a document you can send by hand with no API key anywhere.
+
+State lives in a **case directory** rather than in memory, so a review can
+take a week and survive a reboot.
+
+## Two properties that are not negotiable
+
+**Recipient identifiers are never captured.** Not the `To`, `Cc`,
+`Delivered-To` or `X-Original-To` headers, not your Message-IDs, not maildir
+paths or account names. They are dropped at extraction rather than stripped at
+submission, so the tool cannot disclose an identifier it was never given.
+Tracking tokens inside URLs count: parameter values are redacted, parameter
+names and paths are kept, because the names fingerprint the kit and the values
+identify you.
+
+**Nothing remote is ever fetched while parsing.** Not the URLs, not the
+redirect chains, not remote images. Following a link confirms your address is
+live to the sender and fires exactly the tracker the message wanted. Redirect
+chains are read from headers and link text, never by following them.
+
+## Reversible and irreversible
+
+`submit` writes to MISP first and stops if that fails. MISP is your own
+instance and is correctable; a report to AbuseIPDB, URLhaus or VirusTotal
+cannot be recalled. The reversible step gates the irreversible ones, and it is
+also what answers "have I reported this infrastructure before".
+
+Every destination carries its own status, so a retry sends only what failed. A
+rate-limited vendor does not mean re-reporting to the three that accepted.
+
+## Design
+
+`docs/specs/2026-09-08-abusectl-design.md` is the umbrella design. Each part
+gets its own spec before it is built.
+
+## Requirements
+
+Python 3.11 or newer. `parse` and `report` need nothing else; `contacts` needs
+an HTTP client and `submit` needs PyMISP. Development runs from a venv in the
+checkout.
+
+## License
+
+GPLv2. See `LICENSE`.
+
+## Development Approach
+
+This project is developed using AI-assisted tools. Code is generated with the help of AI based on human-provided specifications, design decisions, and iterative feedback.
+
+All contributions are reviewed, tested, and curated by the maintainer before being included in the codebase. AI is used as a productivity and exploration tool, while human oversight remains central to all decisions.
+
+The goal is to combine the flexibility of AI-assisted development with standard open-source practices such as transparency, review, and accountability.
diff --git a/docs/specs/2026-09-08-abusectl-design.md b/docs/specs/2026-09-08-abusectl-design.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7f72b5c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/specs/2026-09-08-abusectl-design.md
@@ -0,0 +1,423 @@
+# abusectl: abuse reporting sidecar, umbrella design
+
+Status: **agreed 2026-09-08**, in one brainstorming session with the user.
+This is the UMBRELLA spec. Each part gets its own spec before it is built;
+this one settles the decisions the parts share and would be expensive to
+change later.
+
+Backlog: item 194 in qtmaildir's
+`docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-03-post-0.1.0-usability.md`, which carries the
+qtmaildir half and its ordering against items 187 and 190. This document is
+the sidecar, and the two repositories are coupled only by the manifest format
+below and the command name in qtmaildir's config.
+
+## Why this exists
+
+The user is a cybersecurity consultant. They have been phished, and they want
+to act quickly and effectively on a campaign that targets them: parse a
+flagged message, extract its indicators, find who to report each one to, and
+file the result both to their own MISP instance and to the public abuse
+channels. Filling a database with phishing attempts is a feature no other mail
+client offers, which is a reason this one exists.
+
+Two of the user's own constraints are SAFETY PROPERTIES rather than
+preferences, stated when the item was first written and not to be traded away
+for convenience. They are specified in full below: recipient identifiers are
+never captured, and no remote content is ever fetched during parsing.
+
+## Why it is not in qtmaildir
+
+qtmaildir does no network protocol work at all, by design: fetching and
+sending are external scripts, which is why there is no IMAP client, no SMTP
+client, and why send is a per-account `send_command` on stdin. This tool needs
+RDAP, three vendor REST APIs and mail to abuse desks, which is four outbound
+protocols. Building it into `src/` would repeal that rule rather than extend
+it. Its ecosystem is Python besides, where `assets/hooks/` already puts the
+non-GUI parts of this mail system.
+
+**The split is architectural and is not a judgement on the feature.** The
+review UI lives in qtmaildir, because a reviewable document is exactly what
+makes a GUI review possible.
+
+**A separate repository, not a submodule.** qtmaildir invokes `abusectl` as a
+subprocess by name, the way it already invokes `mailsync.sh` and the
+`send_command`; nothing in `src/` includes or imports it. A submodule pins a
+commit that is not the one that runs, since what executes is whatever is
+installed on `$PATH`, and it would cost a two-step clone, an ordering
+constraint on every push across two remotes, and an empty directory in the
+release tarball, because `git archive` does not include submodule contents.
+Compatibility, if it ever matters, is a `format` version in the manifest, the
+same discipline `rules.json` already uses across two readers in two languages.
+
+## Shape
+
+One tool, subcommands, one repository. Each subcommand reads and writes a
+**case directory**, which is where state lives between steps. A review can
+therefore take a week and survive a reboot.
+
+```
+abusectl parse msg.eml        -> case dir, IOCs        offline, pure
+abusectl contacts <case>      -> + abuse contacts      network, read-only
+abusectl report <case>        -> + report bodies       offline, pure
+        [ review, in qtmaildir or $EDITOR ]
+abusectl submit <case>        -> MISP, then vendors    network, writes
+```
+
+Every subcommand is independently runnable and independently useful. `parse`
+alone triages a message. `parse` + `contacts` + `report` produces a document
+that can be sent by hand, with no API key configured anywhere.
+
+**The tool stays usable from a terminal.** The qtmaildir dialog is one front
+end, never the only one: a message that never came through qtmaildir, or a
+session over SSH, must still be workable. Same reasoning as `mailsync.sh`
+printing to stdout as well as its log.
+
+## The one hard ordering rule
+
+`submit` writes **MISP first** and aborts the vendor fan-out if that write
+fails.
+
+MISP is the user's own instance and is correctable through its REST API
+(update, soft-delete, hard-delete); a submission to AbuseIPDB, URLhaus or
+VirusTotal cannot be recalled. So the reversible step gates the irreversible
+ones. Reporting externally with no local record of having done so, and no
+dedup entry to stop a duplicate later, is worse than not reporting at all.
+
+MISP is also the DEDUP ORACLE. It correlates attributes by value across
+events and answers `/attributes/restSearch`, so `submit` can ask whether the
+infrastructure has been reported before and skip or attach rather than
+duplicate. Writing it before the fan-out is what makes that answer available.
+
+**Correction is MISP's own web UI**, not a subcommand here. A destructive verb
+in a tool run often, guarding data the user cares about, is not worth building
+for something MISP already does well. A correction subcommand is possible
+later.
+
+## The case directory
+
+```
+<cases>/2026-09-08-a3f1/
+  source.eml          the original, unredacted
+  manifest.json       IOCs, contacts, destinations, per-destination status
+  bodies/
+    abusedb.json
+    rdap-1.xarf
+```
+
+The path is configurable. **Nothing deletes cases**: they are the user's
+evidence, and a tool that silently bins a report sent last month is worse than
+a directory that grows. Cleanup is not built.
+
+`manifest.json` carries a `format` version. Bodies are separate files because
+they are text a human edits; putting them in the manifest would mean editing
+escaped strings inside a JSON document, or growing an extract/apply pair,
+which is a directory reinvented with extra steps.
+
+**`source.eml` is unredacted local evidence, and the submit path must never
+attach it wholesale.** This is the one route by which the redaction guarantee
+below could leak, so it is stated rather than left obvious. The case directory
+is sensitive at rest.
+
+## Redaction, structurally
+
+**The parser never captures recipient identifiers.** Not stored, not hashed,
+not written to the manifest:
+
+- `To`, `Cc`, `Delivered-To`, `X-Original-To`
+- the user's own Message-IDs
+- maildir paths and account keys
+
+The guarantee is that **the tool cannot disclose an identifier it was never
+given**. It holds no matter what a later subcommand does, which is why it is
+enforced at extraction rather than at submission: a strip-on-submit rule
+depends on every future sending path remembering, and this one does not.
+
+**The report is reviewable and hand-editable before anything is sent.** What
+the tool derives and what the user chooses to disclose are separate things.
+The user can add facts during review that the tool never held, including how
+many of their addresses a campaign hit, which is a fact they supply from their
+own knowledge.
+
+### Tracking parameters are recipient identifiers
+
+A phishing URL commonly carries the recipient's identity in its query string:
+`?e=you@example.org` plaintext, `?u=<base64 of the address>`, or
+`?id=<md5 of the address>`, which a wordlist or a targeted guess reverses.
+Publishing that to four third parties is the same leak as publishing the `To`
+header, hidden one level down.
+
+It also **deanonymises the reporter to the attacker**. Abuse desks forward
+reports to their customers and URLhaus is a public feed, so a kit operator
+watching for their own URLs learns which target reported them. For a
+consultant the parameter may carry a CLIENT's identifier rather than the
+user's own.
+
+**So: keep scheme, host and path; keep parameter NAMES; redact parameter
+VALUES.**
+
+```
+http://login-example.invalid/verify?id=REDACTED&src=REDACTED
+```
+
+This costs the report almost nothing. Parameter names are part of the kit's
+fingerprint and campaigns correlate on infrastructure, not on per-victim
+tokens. The token is unique per recipient BY DESIGN, so it is the one part of
+the URL that cannot correlate anything, and keeping it makes dedup actively
+worse: two messages from one campaign would look like different URLs.
+
+**Path segments carry the token too.** `/verify/ZGFuaXhAZXhhbXBsZS5vcmc/` is
+common and a query-string-only rule misses it entirely. A path segment that
+looks like base64 or a long hex string is FLAGGED FOR REVIEW rather than
+silently redacted, since a path may also be meaningful.
+
+The full URL survives in `source.eml` either way, so the evidence exists
+locally; it is simply not what gets published by default, and the review gate
+allows pasting one in by hand when a particular desk genuinely needs it.
+
+## Components
+
+```
+abusectl/
+  cli.py          argparse dispatch, exit codes. No logic.
+  case.py         case dir: create, load, save manifest, atomic writes
+  parse.py        .eml -> IOCs                       stdlib only, pure
+  contacts.py     IOCs -> abuse contacts (RDAP)      network, read-only
+  report.py       IOCs + contacts -> bodies          pure
+  submit.py       bodies -> MISP, then vendors       network, writes
+  destinations/   one module per target
+    misp.py  abusedb.py  urlhaus.py  virustotal.py  email.py
+  config.py       ~/.config/abusectl/config.toml
+```
+
+**`case.py` is the spine.** Every subcommand goes through it and nothing else
+writes the case directory. It owns the manifest schema and its version, and it
+writes ATOMICALLY, temp file plus rename, the way `mailrules.py` saves
+`rules.json`. A half-written manifest during a review is a corrupted evidence
+record.
+
+**`parse.py` is stdlib-only and pure.** Bytes in, IOC list out; no socket, no
+config read. That is what makes it testable against fixtures with no setup.
+
+**`contacts.py` and `submit.py` are the only network modules**, and both take
+an INJECTED TRANSPORT. Not an abstraction for its own sake: it is the seam
+that lets the irreversible path be tested without sending anything.
+
+**`destinations/` is one module per target**, each exposing the same two
+functions, build a body and send one. A fifth vendor is a new file rather than
+an edit to `submit.py`. This is the one place a plugin shape earns itself,
+because there are four known members with genuinely different APIs. There is
+no discovery mechanism; it is a package with four members.
+
+**`config.py`** reads TOML through stdlib `tomllib`, no dependency. It holds
+the cases path, the MISP URL and key, vendor keys, the user's reporting
+identity for X-ARF, and the trusted-relay boundary described below. Secrets
+live in a file with mode `0600`, checked on load, and **never reach the
+manifest or a log**.
+
+### Deliberately absent
+
+No database of its own: MISP is the database and case directories are the
+local record. No daemon, no queue, no retry scheduler, since retry is the user
+running `submit` again.
+
+### Dependencies by part
+
+| Part | Needs |
+|---|---|
+| `parse` | stdlib only |
+| `contacts` | an HTTP client |
+| `report` | stdlib only |
+| `submit` | HTTP client, PyMISP |
+
+`requirements.txt` is empty until `contacts` is built. **Development runs from
+a venv in the repository**, gitignored; packaging and distribution are
+deliberately out of scope until the tool does something worth installing. A
+SlackBuild in `my-slackbuilds` is the eventual shape, with an nvchecker
+stanza, matching every other tool the user runs.
+
+## Data flow
+
+```
+msg.eml
+   |  parse      creates case, writes source.eml + iocs[]
+   v
+case dir --------------------------------------------------+
+   |  contacts   RDAP per IOC, writes contacts[]            |
+   v                                                        |  every step
+case dir                                                    |  reads and
+   |  report     writes bodies/, destinations[]             |  rewrites
+   v                                                        |  manifest.json
+case dir  -- [ REVIEW: qtmaildir dialog or $EDITOR ] -------+
+   |  submit                                                |
+   +--> MISP ------ fails? STOP, nothing sent --------------+
+   +--> vendors + abuse desks, per-destination status
+```
+
+**Review edits the BODIES, not the IOCs.** Once `report` has run the bodies
+are the artifact, so `report` refuses to run again on a case whose bodies were
+modified after generation unless forced, by a timestamp check in the manifest.
+Silently discarding a review that took twenty minutes is what makes a tool
+untrustworthy.
+
+**`submit` is resumable.** It reads per-destination status and skips anything
+already `sent`, so running it twice is safe. This matters because the failure
+that will actually be hit is a rate limit, not a bug.
+
+## Manifest schema
+
+```json
+{
+  "format": 1,
+  "case_id": "2026-09-08-a3f1",
+  "created": "2026-09-08T12:31:04Z",
+  "source": "source.eml",
+
+  "iocs": [
+    { "id": "ioc-1", "type": "ipv4", "value": "203.0.113.42",
+      "origin": "received-chain", "confidence": "untrusted-hop" },
+    { "id": "ioc-2", "type": "domain", "value": "login-example.invalid",
+      "origin": "href" },
+    { "id": "ioc-3", "type": "url",
+      "value": "http://login-example.invalid/verify?id=REDACTED",
+      "origin": "href-html" },
+    { "id": "ioc-4", "type": "sha256", "value": "e3b0c442...",
+      "origin": "attachment", "filename": "invoice.pdf" }
+  ],
+
+  "auth": { "spf": "fail", "dkim": "none", "dmarc": "fail" },
+
+  "contacts": [
+    { "ioc": "ioc-1", "abuse": "abuse@example.invalid",
+      "source": "rdap", "handle": "AS64496" },
+    { "ioc": "ioc-2", "abuse": null, "source": "rdap",
+      "error": "no abuse contact published" }
+  ],
+
+  "destinations": [
+    { "id": "misp",    "kind": "misp",  "iocs": ["ioc-1","ioc-2","ioc-3"],
+      "body": null,                    "status": "pending" },
+    { "id": "abusedb", "kind": "api",   "iocs": ["ioc-1"],
+      "body": "bodies/abusedb.json",   "status": "pending" },
+    { "id": "rdap-1",  "kind": "email", "iocs": ["ioc-1"],
+      "target": "abuse@example.invalid",
+      "body": "bodies/rdap-1.xarf",    "status": "pending" }
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+After a submit in which one destination failed:
+
+```json
+{ "id": "abusedb", "status": "sent",
+  "sent_at": "2026-09-08T12:40:11Z", "receipt": "8891234" },
+{ "id": "virustotal", "status": "failed",
+  "attempted_at": "2026-09-08T12:40:12Z", "error": "429 rate limited" }
+```
+
+### Five schema decisions, and why
+
+**IOCs carry an `id` and everything references it.** Contacts and destinations
+point at `ioc-2` rather than repeating the value, so there is one place to
+correct it and a destination cannot drift from the IOC it reports.
+
+**`origin` on every IOC** names where it came from: `received-chain`, `href`,
+`attachment`. During review the user needs to know whether an IP came from a
+header to trust or one the attacker wrote. Without it, review is guesswork.
+
+**`confidence: untrusted-hop`** exists because of the `Received` trap below.
+An IP from beneath the trusted-relay boundary is attacker-supplied, and the
+manifest says so rather than presenting it as fact.
+
+**`status` is per destination**, never one status for the case. There is no
+single answer when four destinations disagree.
+
+**MISP is a destination like the others**, with `body: null` because PyMISP
+builds its own payload. That keeps `submit` one loop with one ordering rule
+rather than a special case beside a loop.
+
+## Error handling
+
+**Partial failure is the normal case, not an exception.** Four destinations
+can disagree, so each carries its own status and a retry sends only what did
+not land. All-or-nothing would be wrong here: the successful submissions
+really happened and cannot be recalled, so recording them as failed would make
+the next attempt duplicate real reports.
+
+**A MISP failure aborts before anything irreversible runs**, per the ordering
+rule above.
+
+**A missing abuse contact is not an error.** RDAP publishes none for many
+netblocks. The IOC keeps `"abuse": null` with the reason, the destination is
+simply not created, and review shows what could not be resolved.
+
+## Testing
+
+`parse` is fixtures in, JSON out, so the whole reversible half is testable
+offline with no network and no keys. The network parts get their transport
+stubbed through the injected seam.
+
+**Fixtures use `example.org` and `.invalid` addresses and generic
+placeholders**, per the user's standing personal-data rule. Real phishing
+samples do not go in the repository: they carry the recipient identifiers this
+tool exists to keep out of reports, and a repository is potentially public.
+
+Python conventions follow `assets/hooks/` in qtmaildir: GPLv2 header on every
+file, `unittest`, a `test_<module>.py` beside each module, no framework.
+
+## `parse` in detail: the first part to build
+
+Extracted:
+
+- **Sending IP** from the `Received` chain: the last UNTRUSTED hop
+- **Sender domains**: `Return-Path`, `From`, `Reply-To` where it differs
+- **Href domains and full URLs** from HTML and text parts, decoded, redacted
+  per the rule above, never fetched
+- **Redirect chains** as DECLARED in headers and href text, never followed
+- **Auth results**: `Authentication-Results`, and the SPF/DKIM/DMARC verdicts
+  as the receiving server recorded them
+- **Attachment filenames and SHA-256 hashes**, since a hash is reportable and
+  a filename is an indicator
+
+Never captured: recipients, the user's Message-IDs, maildir paths, account
+keys.
+
+### Two traps, which is where this kind of parser goes wrong
+
+**The `Received` chain is attacker-controlled below the user's own
+infrastructure.** Headers can be forged wholesale, and only the hops the
+user's own MTA added are trustworthy. Without a configured trusted-relay
+boundary, the "sending IP" is whatever the attacker chose to write. The
+boundary is config; IOCs below it are marked `untrusted-hop` rather than
+presented as fact.
+
+**Never resolve and never fetch.** Not the URLs, not the redirects, not remote
+images. Following a link confirms the address is live to the sender and fires
+exactly the tracker the message wanted. This is a parser over bytes, and that
+is a safety property rather than a performance choice.
+
+## The qtmaildir half
+
+Specified in item 194 and built after 187 and 190, which settle what Mark spam
+does and put it on the message bar. It is a review dialog over the case
+directory: show the bodies, allow editing, show what could not be resolved,
+and call `submit` on approval, then show per-destination results with a retry
+for the failures. Sized M in the backlog, not the S a plain button would be:
+a review dialog is real UI, and the user asked for the review to happen in the
+application rather than in an editor.
+
+The wire contract is this document's manifest plus the `abusectl` command name
+in qtmaildir's config, in the shape `[sync] command` and the per-account
+`send_command` already use.
+
+## What each later spec has to settle
+
+- **`contacts`**: RDAP bootstrap and referral chasing, caching policy, rate
+  limits, and what happens for a netblock that publishes no abuse contact.
+- **`report`**: the X-ARF (RFC 5965) schema version, which fields the user's
+  reporting identity fills, and the plain-text alternative for desks that do
+  not parse X-ARF.
+- **`submit`**: per-vendor auth and payload shapes, MISP event structure
+  (one event per case, or per campaign, and how the dedup query decides),
+  and how mail to an abuse desk is sent, which most likely reuses qtmaildir's
+  own `send_command` rather than adding an SMTP client.
+- **The qtmaildir dialog**: its own item, after 187 and 190.