< draft-moore-rfc1891bis-01.txt   draft-moore-rfc1891bis-02.txt >
Network Working Group Keith Moore A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
Internet-Draft University of Tennessee
Obsoletes: RFC 1891
24 July 2002
Expires: 24 January 2003
SMTP Service Extension
for Delivery Status Notifications
draft-moore-rfc1891bis-01.txt
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of
Section 10 of RFC2026.
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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Comments regarding this internet-draft should be sent by electronic mail
to the notifications@cs.utk.edu mailing list. Requests to subscribe to
this mailing list should be sent to notifications-REQUEST@cs.utk.edu.
Status of this Memo
This document is an attempt to revise RFC 1891, which is currently a
Proposed Standard document. The purpose of this draft is to make any
revisions necessary to allow the protocol to advance to Draft Standard
status. Reviewers are urged to read this document in light of
experience in implementing RFC 1891 and related specifications, and to
make suggestions for any corrections or clarifications that would be
useful in improving clarity or interoperability of these specifications.
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 RFC 2119.
Per an agreement reached during the approval process for RFC 1891,
during the review process for this document's advancement to Draft
Standard status, any normative text (phrases containing SHOULD, SHOULD
NOT, MUST, MUST NOT, or MAY) in this document are to be re-evaluated in
light of implementation experience. Reviewers are specifically
requested to comment on whether the keyword choices are appropriate.
[[Note to ADs and RFC Editor: presumably this paragraph should be
removed on publication as a Draft Standard RFC?]]
NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: To minimize the potential for transcription errors
in the RFC reformatting process, revisable nroff source for this
document is available from
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/drafts/rfc1891bis.tar
Table of Contents
Status of this Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Framework for the Delivery Status Notification Extension . . . . 5
4. The Delivery Status Notification service extension . . . . . . . 6
5. Additional parameters for RCPT and MAIL commands . . . . . . . . 7
5.1 The NOTIFY parameter of the ESMTP RCPT command . . . . . . . . 8
5.2 The ORCPT parameter to the ESMTP RCPT command . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3 The RET parameter of the ESMTP MAIL command . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.4 The ENVID parameter to the ESMTP MAIL command . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5 Restrictions on the use of Delivery Status Notification
parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Conformance requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1 SMTP protocol interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2 Handling of messages received via SMTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2.1 Relay of messages to other conforming SMTP servers . . . . . . 13
6.2.2 Relay of messages to non-conforming SMTP servers . . . . . . 13
6.2.3 Local delivery of messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.2.4 Gatewaying a message into a foreign environment . . . . . . . 15
6.2.5 Delays in delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2.6 Failure of a conforming MTA to deliver a message . . . . . . 16
6.2.7 Forwarding, aliases, and mailing lists . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2.7.1 mailing lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2.7.2 single-recipient aliases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2.7.3 multiple-recipient aliases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2.7.4 confidential forwarding addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2.8 DSNs describing delivery to multiple recipients . . . . . . . 19
6.3 Handling of messages from other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.4 Implementation limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Format of delivery notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.1 SMTP Envelope to be used with delivery status notifications
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.2 Contents of the DSN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.3 Message/delivery-status fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. Appendix - Type-Name Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.1 "rfc822" address-type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.2 "smtp" diagnostic-type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.3 "dns" MTA-name-type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10. Appendix - Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.1 Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10.2 Relay to Example.COM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
10.3 Relay to Ivory.EDU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
10.4 Relay to Bombs.AF.MIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10.5 Forward from George@Tax-ME.GOV to Sam@Boondoggle.GOV . . . . . 28
10.6 "Delivered" DSN for Bob@Example.COM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10.7 Failed DSN for Carol@Ivory.EDU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10.8 Relayed DSN For Dana@Ivory.EDU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
10.9 Failure notification for Sam@Boondoggle.GOV . . . . . . . . . . 32
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
12. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Appendix - Changes since RFC 1891 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1. Abstract
This memo defines an extension to the SMTP service, which allows an SMTP
client to specify (a) that delivery status notifications (DSNs) should
be generated under certain conditions, (b) whether such notifications
should return the contents of the message, and (c) additional
information, to be returned with a DSN, that allows the sender to
identify both the recipient(s) for which the DSN was issued, and the
transaction in which the original message was sent.
2. Introduction
The SMTP protocol [1] requires that an SMTP server provide notification
of delivery failure, if it determines that a message cannot be delivered
to one or more recipients. Traditionally, such notification consists of
an ordinary Internet mail message (format defined by [2]), sent to the
envelope sender address (the argument of the SMTP MAIL command),
containing an explanation of the error and at least the headers of the
failed message.
Experience with large mail distribution lists [3] indicates that such
messages are often insufficient to diagnose problems, or even to
determine at which host or for which recipients a problem occurred. In
addition, the lack of a standardized format for delivery notifications
in Internet mail makes it difficult to exchange such notifications with
other message handling systems.
Such experience has demonstrated a need for a delivery status
notification service for Internet electronic mail, which:
(a) is reliable, in the sense that any DSN request will either be
honored at the time of final delivery, or result in a response that
indicates that the request cannot be honored,
(b) when both success and failure notifications are requested, provides
an unambiguous and nonconflicting indication of whether delivery of
a message to a recipient succeeded or failed,
(c) is stable, in that a failed attempt to deliver a DSN should never
result in the transmission of another DSN over the network,
(d) preserves sufficient information to allow the sender to identify
both the mail transaction and the recipient address which caused
the notification, even when mail is forwarded or gatewayed to
foreign environments, and
(e) interfaces acceptably with non-SMTP and non-822-based mail systems,
both so that notifications returned from foreign mail systems may
be useful to Internet users, and so that the notification requests
from foreign environments may be honored. Among the requirements
implied by this goal are the ability to request non-return-of-
content, and the ability to specify whether positive delivery
notifications, negative delivery notifications, both, or neither,
should be issued.
In an attempt to provide such a service, this memo uses the mechanism
defined in [4] to define an extension to the SMTP protocol. Using this
mechanism, an SMTP client may request that an SMTP server issue or not
issue a delivery status notification (DSN) under certain conditions.
The format of a DSN is defined in [5].
3. Framework for the Delivery Status Notification Extension
The following service extension is therefore defined:
(1) The name of the SMTP service extension is "Delivery Status
Notification";
(2) the EHLO keyword value associated with this extension is "DSN", the
meaning of which is defined in section 4 of this memo;
(3) no parameters are allowed with this EHLO keyword value;
(4) two optional parameters are added to the RCPT command, and two
optional parameters are added to the MAIL command:
An optional parameter for the RCPT command, using the esmtp-keyword
"NOTIFY", (to specify the conditions under which a delivery status
notification should be generated), is defined in section 5.1,
An optional parameter for the RCPT command, using the esmtp-keyword
"ORCPT", (used to convey the "original" (sender-specified)
recipient address), is defined in section 5.2, and
An optional parameter for the MAIL command, using the esmtp-keyword
"RET", (to request that DSNs containing an indication of delivery
failure either return the entire contents of a message or only the
message headers), is defined in section 5.3,
An optional parameter for the MAIL command, using the esmtp-keyword
"ENVID", (used to propagate an identifier for this message
transmission envelope, which is also known to the sender and will,
if present, be returned in any DSNs issued for this transmission),
is defined in section 5.4;
(5) no additional SMTP verbs are defined by this extension.
The remainder of this memo specifies how support for the extension
affects the behavior of a message transfer agent.
4. The Delivery Status Notification service extension
An SMTP client wishing to request a DSN for a message may issue the EHLO
command to start an SMTP session, to determine if the server supports
any of several service extensions. If the server responds with code 250
to the EHLO command, and the response includes the EHLO keyword DSN,
then the Delivery Status Notification extension (as described in this
memo) is supported.
Ordinarily, when an SMTP server returns a positive (2xx) reply code in
response to a RCPT command, it agrees to accept responsibility for
either delivering the message to the named recipient, or sending a
notification to the sender of the message indicating that delivery has
failed. However, an extended SMTP ("ESMTP") server which implements
this service extension will accept an optional NOTIFY parameter with the
RCPT command. If present, the NOTIFY parameter alters the conditions for
generation of delivery status notifications from the default (issue
notifications only on failure) specified in [1]. The ESMTP client may
also request (via the RET parameter) whether the entire contents of the
original message should be returned (as opposed to just the headers of
that message), along with the DSN.
In general, an ESMTP server which implements this service extension will
propagate delivery status notification requests when relaying mail to
other SMTP-based MTAs which also support this extension, and make a
"best effort" to ensure that such requests are honored when messages are
passed into other environments.
In order that any delivery status notifications thus generated will be
meaningful to the sender, any ESMTP server which supports this extension
will attempt to propagate the following information to any other MTAs
that are used to relay the message, for use in generating DSNs:
(a) for each recipient, a copy of the original recipient address, as
used by the sender of the message.
This address need not be the same as the mailbox specified in the
RCPT command. For example, if a message was originally addressed
to A@B.C and later forwarded to A@D.E, after such forwarding has
taken place, the RCPT command will specify a mailbox of A@D.E.
However, the original recipient address remains A@B.C.
Also, if the message originated from an environment which does not
use Internet-style user@domain addresses, and was gatewayed into
SMTP, the original recipient address will preserve the original
form of the recipient address.
(b) for the entire SMTP transaction, an envelope identification string,
which may be used by the sender to associate any delivery status
notifications with the transaction used to send the original
message.
5. Additional parameters for RCPT and MAIL commands
The extended RCPT and MAIL commands are issued by a client when it
wishes to request a DSN from the server, under certain conditions, for a
particular recipient. The extended RCPT and MAIL commands are identical
to the RCPT and MAIL commands defined in [1], except that one or more of
the following parameters appear after the sender or recipient address,
respectively. The general syntax for extended SMTP commands is defined
in [4].
NOTE: Although RFC 822 ABNF is used to describe the syntax of these
parameters, they are not, in the language of that document, "structured
field bodies". Therefore, while parentheses MAY appear within an emstp-
value, they are not recognized as comment delimiters.
The syntax for "esmtp-value" in [4] does not allow SP, "=", control
characters, or characters outside the traditional ASCII range of 1-127
decimal to be transmitted in an esmtp-value. Because the ENVID and
ORCPT parameters may need to convey values outside this range, the
esmtp-values for these parameters are encoded as "xtext". "xtext" is
formally defined as follows:
xtext = *( xchar / hexchar )
xchar = any ASCII CHAR between "!" (33) and "~" (126) inclusive,
except for "+" and "=".
; "hexchar"s are intended to encode octets that cannot appear
; as ASCII characters within an esmtp-value.
hexchar = ASCII "+" immediately followed by two upper case
hexadecimal digits
When encoding an octet sequence as xtext:
+ Any ASCII CHAR between "!" and "~" inclusive, except for "+" and
"=", MAY be encoded as itself. (A CHAR in this range MAY instead
be encoded as a "hexchar", at the implementor's discretion.)
+ ASCII CHARs that fall outside the range above must be encoded as
"hexchar".
5.1 The NOTIFY parameter of the ESMTP RCPT command
A RCPT command issued by a client may contain the optional esmtp-keyword
"NOTIFY", to specify the conditions under which the SMTP server should
generate DSNs for that recipient. If the NOTIFY esmtp-keyword is used,
it MUST have an associated esmtp-value, formatted according to the
following rules, using the ABNF of RFC 822:
notify-esmtp-value = "NEVER" / 1#notify-list-element
notify-list-element = "SUCCESS" / "FAILURE" / "DELAY"
Notes:
a. Multiple notify-list-elements, separated by commas, MAY appear in a
NOTIFY parameter; however, the NEVER keyword MUST appear by itself.
b. Any of the keywords NEVER, SUCCESS, FAILURE, or DELAY may be
spelled in any combination of upper and lower case letters.
The meaning of the NOTIFY parameter values is generally as follows:
+ A NOTIFY parameter value of "NEVER" requests that a DSN not be
returned to the sender under any conditions.
+ A NOTIFY parameter value containing the "SUCCESS" or "FAILURE"
keywords requests that a DSN be issued on successful delivery or
delivery failure, respectively.
+ A NOTIFY parameter value containing the keyword "DELAY" indicates
the sender's willingness to receive "delayed" DSNs. Delayed DSNs
may be issued if delivery of a message has been delayed for an
unusual amount of time (as determined by the MTA at which the
message is delayed), but the final delivery status (whether
successful or failure) cannot be determined. The absence of the
DELAY keyword in a NOTIFY parameter requests that a "delayed" DSN
NOT be issued under any conditions.
The actual rules governing interpretation of the NOTIFY parameter are
given in section 6.
For compatibility with SMTP clients that do not use the NOTIFY facility,
the absence of a NOTIFY parameter in a RCPT command may be interpreted
as either NOTIFY=FAILURE or NOTIFY=FAILURE,DELAY.
5.2 The ORCPT parameter to the ESMTP RCPT command
The ORCPT esmtp-keyword of the RCPT command is used to specify an
"original" recipient address that corresponds to the actual recipient to
which the message is to be delivered. If the ORCPT esmtp-keyword is
used, it MUST have an associated esmtp-value, which consists of the
original recipient address, encoded according to the rules below. The
ABNF for the ORCPT parameter is:
orcpt-parameter = "ORCPT=" original-recipient-address
original-recipient-address = addr-type ";" xtext
addr-type = atom
The "addr-type" portion MUST be an IANA-registered electronic mail
address-type (as defined in [5]), while the "xtext" portion contains an
encoded representation of the original recipient address using the rules
in section 5 of this document. The entire ORCPT parameter MAY be up to
500 characters in length.
When initially submitting a message via SMTP, if the ORCPT parameter is
used, it MUST contain the same address as the RCPT TO address (unlike
the RCPT TO address, the ORCPT parameter will be encoded as xtext).
Likewise, when a mailing list submits a message via SMTP to be
distributed to the list subscribers, if ORCPT is used, the ORCPT
parameter MUST match the new RCPT TO address of each recipient, not the
address specified by the original sender of the message.)
The "addr-type" portion of the original-recipient-address is used to
indicate the "type" of the address which appears in the ORCPT parameter
value. However, the address associated with the ORCPT keyword is NOT
constrained to conform to the syntax rules for that "addr-type".
Ideally, the "xtext" portion of the original-recipient-address should
contain, in encoded form, the same sequence of characters that the
sender used to specify the recipient. However, for a message gatewayed
from an environment (such as X.400) in which a recipient address is not
a simple string of printable characters, the representation of recipient
address must be defined by a specification for gatewaying between DSNs
and that environment.
5.3 The RET parameter of the ESMTP MAIL command
The RET esmtp-keyword on the extended MAIL command specifies whether or
not the message should be included in any failed DSN issued for this
message transmission. If the RET esmtp-keyword is used, it MUST have an
associated esmtp-value, which is one of the following keywords:
FULL requests that the entire message be returned in any "failed"
delivery status notification issued for this recipient.
HDRS requests that only the headers of the message be returned.
The FULL and HDRS keywords may be spelled in any combination of upper
and lower case letters.
If no RET parameter is supplied, the MTA MAY return either the headers
of the message or the entire message for any DSN containing indication
of failed deliveries.
Note that the RET parameter only applies to DSNs that indicate delivery
failure for at least one recipient. If a DSN contains no indications of
delivery failure, only the headers of the message should be returned.
5.4 The ENVID parameter to the ESMTP MAIL command
The ENVID esmtp-keyword of the SMTP MAIL command is used to specify an
"envelope identifier" to be transmitted along with the message and
included in any DSNs issued for any of the recipients named in this SMTP
transaction. The purpose of the envelope identifier is to allow the
sender of a message to identify the transaction for which the DSN was
issued.
The ABNF for the ENVID parameter is:
envid-parameter = "ENVID=" xtext
The ENVID esmtp-keyword MUST have an associated esmtp-value. No meaning
is assigned by the mail system to the presence or absence of this
parameter or to any esmtp-value associated with this parameter; the
information is used only by the sender or his user agent. The ENVID
parameter MAY be up to 100 characters in length.
5.5 Restrictions on the use of Delivery Status Notification parameters
The RET and ENVID parameters MUST NOT appear more than once each in any
single MAIL command. If more than one of either of these parameters
appears in a MAIL command, the ESMTP server SHOULD respond with "501
syntax error in parameters or arguments".
The NOTIFY and ORCPT parameters MUST NOT appear more than once in any
RCPT command. If more than one of either of these parameters appears in
a RCPT command, the ESMTP server SHOULD respond with "501 syntax error
in parameters or arguments".
6. Conformance requirements
The Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) is used by Message Transfer
Agents (MTAs) when accepting, relaying, or gatewaying mail, as well as
User Agents (UAs) when submitting mail to the mail transport system.
The DSN extension to SMTP may be used to allow UAs to convey the
sender's requests as to when DSNs should be issued. A UA which claims
to conform to this specification must meet certain requirements as
described below.
Typically, a message transfer agent (MTA) which supports SMTP will
assume, at different times, both the role of a SMTP client and an SMTP
server, and may also provide local delivery, gatewaying to foreign
environments, forwarding, and mailing list expansion. An MTA which,
when acting as an SMTP server, issues the DSN keyword in response to the
EHLO command, MUST obey the rules below for a "conforming SMTP client"
when acting as a client, and a "conforming SMTP server" when acting as a
server. The term "conforming MTA" refers to an MTA which conforms to
this specification, independent of its role of client or server.
6.1 SMTP protocol interactions
The following rules apply to SMTP transactions in which any of the
ENVID, NOTIFY, RET, or ORCPT keywords are used:
(a) If an SMTP client issues a MAIL command containing a valid ENVID
parameter and associated esmtp-value and/or a valid RET parameter
and associated esmtp-value, a conforming SMTP server MUST return
the same reply-code as it would to the same MAIL command without
the ENVID and/or RET parameters. A conforming SMTP server MUST NOT
refuse a MAIL command based on the absence or presence of valid
ENVID or RET parameters, or on their associated esmtp-values.
However, if the associated esmtp-value is not valid (i.e. contains
illegal characters), or if there is more than one ENVID or RET
parameter in a particular MAIL command, the server MUST issue the
reply-code 501 with an appropriate message (e.g. "syntax error in
parameter").
(b) If an SMTP client issues a RCPT command containing any valid NOTIFY
and/or ORCPT parameters, a conforming SMTP server MUST return the
same response as it would to the same RCPT command without those
NOTIFY and/or ORCPT parameters. A conforming SMTP server MUST NOT
refuse a RCPT command based on the presence or absence of any of
these parameters.
However, if any of the associated esmtp-values are not valid, or if
there is more than one of any of these parameters in a particular
RCPT command, the server SHOULD issue the response "501 syntax
error in parameter".
6.2 Handling of messages received via SMTP
This section describes how a conforming MTA should handle any messages
received via SMTP.
NOTE: A DSN MUST NOT be returned to the sender for any message for which
the return address from the SMTP MAIL command was NULL ("<>"), even if
the sender's address is available from other sources (e.g. the message
header). However, the MTA which would otherwise issue a DSN SHOULD
inform the local postmaster of delivery failures through some
appropriate mechanism that will not itself result in the generation of
DSNs.
DISCUSSION: RFC 1123, section 2.3.3 requires error notifications to be
sent with a NULL return address ("reverse-path"). This creates an
interesting situation when a message arrives with one or more
nonfunctional recipient addresses in addition to a nonfunctional return
address. When delivery to one of the recipient addresses fails, the MTA
will attempt to send a nondelivery notification to the return address,
setting the return address on the notification to NULL. When the
delivery of this notification fails, the MTA attempting delivery of that
notification sees a NULL return address. If that MTA were not to inform
anyone of the situation, the original message would be silently lost.
Furthermore, a nonfunctional return address is often indicative of a
configuration problem in the sender's MTA. Reporting the condition to
the local postmaster may help to speed correction of such errors.
6.2.1 Relay of messages to other conforming SMTP servers
The following rules govern the behavior of a conforming MTA, when
relaying a message which was received via the SMTP protocol, to an SMTP
server that supports the Delivery Status Notification service extension:
(a) Any ENVID parameter included in the MAIL command when a message was
received, MUST also appear on the MAIL command with which the
message is relayed, with the same associated esmtp-value. If no
ENVID parameter was included in the MAIL command when the message
was received, the ENVID parameter MUST NOT be supplied when the
message is relayed.
(b) Any RET parameter included in the MAIL command when a message was
received, MUST also appear on the MAIL command with which the
message is relayed, with the same associated esmtp-value. If no
RET parameter was included in the MAIL command when the message was
received, the RET parameter MUST NOT supplied when the message is
relayed.
(c) If the NOTIFY parameter was supplied for a recipient when the
message was received, the RCPT command issued when the message is
relayed MUST also contain the NOTIFY parameter along with its
associated esmtp-value. If the NOTIFY parameter was not supplied
for a recipient when the message was received, the NOTIFY parameter
MUST NOT be supplied for that recipient when the message is
relayed.
(d) If any ORCPT parameter was present in the RCPT command for a
recipient when the message was received, an ORCPT parameter with
the identical original-recipient-address MUST appear in the RCPT
command issued for that recipient when relaying the message. (For
example, the MTA therefore MUST NOT change the case of any
alphabetic characters in an ORCPT parameter.)
If no ORCPT parameter was present in the RCPT command when the
message was received, an ORCPT parameter MAY be added to the RCPT
command when the message is relayed. If an ORCPT parameter is
added by the relaying MTA, it MUST contain the recipient address
from the RCPT command used when the message was received by that
MTA.
6.2.2 Relay of messages to non-conforming SMTP servers
The following rules govern the behavior of a conforming MTA (in the role
of client), when relaying a message which was received via the SMTP
protocol, to an SMTP server that does not support the Delivery Status
Notification service extension:
(a) ENVID, NOTIFY, RET, or ORCPT parameters MUST NOT be issued when
relaying the message.
(b) If the NOTIFY parameter was supplied for a recipient, with an
esmtp-value containing the keyword SUCCESS, and the SMTP server
returns a success (2xx) reply-code in response to the RCPT command,
the client MUST issue a "relayed" DSN for that recipient.
(c) If the NOTIFY parameter was supplied for a recipient with an esmtp-
value containing the keyword FAILURE, and the SMTP server returns a
permanent failure (5xx) reply-code in response to the RCPT command,
the client MUST issue a "failed" DSN for that recipient.
(d) If the NOTIFY parameter was supplied for a recipient with an esmtp-
value of NEVER, the client MUST NOT issue a DSN for that recipient,
regardless of the reply-code returned by the SMTP server. However,
if the server returned a failure (5xx) reply-code, the client MAY
inform the local postmaster of the delivery failure via an
appropriate mechanism that will not itself result in the generation
of DSNs.
When attempting to relay a message to an SMTP server that does not
support this extension, and if NOTIFY=NEVER was specified for some
recipients of that message, a conforming SMTP client MAY relay the
message for those recipients in a separate SMTP transaction, using
an empty reverse-path in the MAIL command. This will prevent DSNs
from being issued for those recipients by MTAs that conform to [1].
(e) If a NOTIFY parameter was not supplied for a recipient, and the
SMTP server returns a success (2xx) reply-code in response to a
RCPT command, the client MUST NOT issue any DSN for that recipient.
(f) If a NOTIFY parameter was not supplied for a recipient, and the
SMTP server returns a permanent failure (5xx) reply-code in
response to a RCPT command, the client MUST issue a "failed" DSN
for that recipient.
6.2.3 Local delivery of messages
The following rules govern the behavior of a conforming MTA upon
successful delivery of a message that was received via the SMTP
protocol, to a local recipient's mailbox:
"Delivery" means that the message has been placed in the recipient's
mailbox. For messages which are transmitted to a mailbox for later
retrieval via IMAP [6], POP [7] or a similar message access protocol,
"delivery" occurs when the message is made available to the IMAP (POP,
etc.) service, rather than when the message is retrieved by the
recipient's user agent.
Similarly, for a recipient address which corresponds to a mailing list
exploder, "delivery" occurs when the message is made available to that
list exploder, even though the list exploder might refuse to deliver
that message to the list recipients.
(a) If the NOTIFY parameter was supplied for that recipient, with an
esmtp-value containing the SUCCESS keyword, the MTA MUST issue a
"delivered" DSN for that recipient.
(b) If the NOTIFY parameter was supplied for that recipient which did
not contain the SUCCESS keyword, the MTA MUST NOT issue a DSN for
that recipient.
(c) If the NOTIFY parameter was not supplied for that recipient, the
MTA MUST NOT issue a DSN.
6.2.4 Gatewaying a message into a foreign environment
The following rules govern the behavior of a conforming MTA, when
gatewaying a message that was received via the SMTP protocol, into a
foreign (non-SMTP) environment:
(a) If the the foreign environment is capable of issuing appropriate
notifications under the conditions requested by the NOTIFY
parameter, and the conforming MTA can ensure that any notification
thus issued will be translated into a DSN and delivered to the
original sender, then the MTA SHOULD gateway the message into the
foreign environment, requesting notification under the desired
conditions, without itself issuing a DSN.
(b) If a NOTIFY parameter was supplied with the SUCCESS keyword, but
the destination environment cannot return an appropriate
notification on successful delivery, the MTA SHOULD issue a
"relayed" DSN for that recipient.
(c) If a NOTIFY parameter was supplied with an esmtp-keyword of NEVER,
a DSN MUST NOT be issued. If possible, the MTA SHOULD direct the
destination environment to not issue delivery notifications for
that recipient.
(d) If the NOTIFY parameter was not supplied for a particular
recipient, a DSN SHOULD NOT be issued by the gateway. The gateway
SHOULD attempt to ensure that appropriate notification will be
provided by the foreign mail environment if eventual delivery
failure occurs, and that no notification will be issued on
successful delivery.
(e) When gatewaying a message into a foreign environment, the return-
of-content conditions specified by any RET parameter are
nonbinding; however, the MTA SHOULD attempt to honor the request
using whatever mechanisms exist in the foreign environment.
6.2.5 Delays in delivery
If a conforming MTA receives a message via the SMTP protocol, and is
unable to deliver or relay the message to one or more recipients for an
extended length of time (to be determined by the MTA), it MAY issue a
"delayed" DSN for those recipients, subject to the following conditions:
(a) If the NOTIFY parameter was supplied for a recipient and its value
included the DELAY keyword, a "delayed" DSN MAY be issued.
(b) If the NOTIFY parameter was not supplied for a recipient, a
"delayed" DSN MAY be issued.
(c) If the NOTIFY parameter was supplied which did not contain the
DELAY keyword, a "delayed" DSN MUST NOT be issued.
NOTE: Although delay notifications are common in present-day electronic
mail, a conforming MTA is never required to issue "delayed" DSNs. The
DELAY keyword of the NOTIFY parameter is provided to allow the SMTP
client to specifically request (by omitting the DELAY parameter) that
"delayed" DSNs NOT be issued.
6.2.6 Failure of a conforming MTA to deliver a message
The following rules govern the behavior of a conforming MTA which
received a message via the SMTP protocol, and is unable to deliver a
message to a recipient specified in the SMTP transaction:
(a) If a NOTIFY parameter was supplied for the recipient with an esmtp-
keyword containing the value FAILURE, a "failed" DSN MUST be issued
by the MTA.
(b) If a NOTIFY parameter was supplied for the recipient which did not
contain the value FAILURE, a DSN MUST NOT be issued for that
recipient. However, the MTA MAY inform the local postmaster of the
delivery failure via some appropriate mechanism which does not
itself result in the generation of DSNs.
(c) If no NOTIFY parameter was supplied for the recipient, a "failed"
DSN MUST be issued.
NOTE: Some MTAs are known to forward undeliverable messages to the local
postmaster or "dead letter" mailbox. This is still considered delivery
failure, and does not diminish the requirement to issue a "failed" DSN
under the conditions defined elsewhere in this memo. If a DSN is issued
for such a recipient, the Action value MUST be "failed".
6.2.7 Forwarding, aliases, and mailing lists
Delivery of a message to a local email address usually causes the
message to be stored in the recipient's mailbox. However, MTAs commonly
provide a facility where a local email address can be designated as an
"alias" or "mailing list"; delivery to that address then causes the
message to be forwarded to each of the (local or remote) recipient
addresses associated with the alias or list. It is also common to allow
a user to optionally "forward" her mail to one or more alternate
addresses. If this feature is enabled, her mail is redistributed to
those addresses instead of being deposited in her mailbox.
Following the example of [9] (section 5.3.6), this document defines the
difference between an "alias" and "mailing list" as follows: When
forwarding a message to the addresses associated with an "alias", the
envelope return address (e.g. SMTP MAIL FROM) remains intact. However,
when forwarding a message to the addresses associated with a "mailing
list", the envelope return address is changed to that of the
administrator of the mailing list. This causes DSNs and other
nondelivery reports resulting from delivery to the list members to be
sent to the list administrator rather than the sender of the original
message.
The DSN processing for aliases and mailing lists is as follows:
6.2.7.1 mailing lists
When a message is delivered to a list submission address (i.e. placed in
the list's mailbox for incoming mail, or accepted by the process that
redistributes the message to the list subscribers), this is considered
final delivery for the original message. If the NOTIFY parameter for
the list submission address contained the SUCCESS keyword, a "delivered"
DSN MUST be returned to the sender of the original message.
NOTE: Some mailing lists are able to reject message submissions, based
on the content of the message, the sender's address, or some other
criteria. While the interface between such a mailing list and its MTA
is not well-defined, it is important that DSNs NOT be issued by both the
MTA (to report successful delivery to the list), and the list (to report
message rejection using a "failure" DSN.)
However, even if a "delivered" DSN was issued by the MTA, a mailing list
which rejects a message submission MAY notify the sender that the
message was rejected using an ordinary message instead of a DSN.
Whenever a message is redistributed to an mailing list,
(a) The envelope return address is rewritten to point to the list
maintainer. This address MAY be that of a process that recognizes
DSNs and processes them automatically, but it MUST forward
unrecognized messages to the human responsible for the list.
(b) The ENVID, NOTIFY, RET, and ORCPT parameters which accompany the
redistributed message MUST NOT be derived from those of the
original message.
(c) The NOTIFY and RET parameters MAY be specified by the local
postmaster or the list administrator. If ORCPT parameters are
supplied during redistribution to the list subscribers, they SHOULD
contain the addresses of the list subscribers in the format used by
the mailing list.
6.2.7.2 single-recipient aliases
Under normal circumstances, when a message arrives for an "alias" which
has a single forwarding address, a DSN SHOULD NOT be issued. Any ENVID,
NOTIFY, RET, or ORCPT parameters SHOULD be propagated with the message
as it is redistributed to the forwarding address.
6.2.7.3 multiple-recipient aliases
An "alias" with multiple recipient addresses may be handled in any of
the following ways:
(a) Any ENVID, NOTIFY, RET, or ORCPT parameters are NOT propagated when
relaying the message to any of the forwarding addresses. If the
NOTIFY parameter for the alias contained the SUCCESS keyword, the
MTA issues a "relayed" DSN. (In effect, the MTA treats the message
as if it were being relayed into an environment that does not
support DSNs.)
(b) Any ENVID, NOTIFY, RET, or ORCPT parameters (or the equivalent
requests if the message is gatewayed) are propagated to EXACTLY one
of the forwarding addresses. No DSN is issued. (This is
appropriate when aliasing is used to forward a message to a
"vacation" auto-responder program in addition to the local
mailbox.)
(c) Any ENVID, RET, or ORCPT parameters are propagated to all
forwarding addresses associated with that alias. The NOTIFY
parameter is propagated to the forwarding addresses, except that it
any SUCCESS keyword is removed. If the original NOTIFY parameter
for the alias contained the SUCCESS keyword, an "expanded" DSN is
issued for the alias. If the NOTIFY parameter for the alias did
not contain the SUCCESS keyword, no DSN is issued for the alias.
6.2.7.4 confidential forwarding addresses
If it is desired to maintain the confidentiality of a recipient's
forwarding address, the forwarding may be treated as if it were a
mailing list. A DSN will be issued, if appropriate, upon "delivery" to
the recipient address specified by the sender. When the message is
forwarded it will have a new envelope return address. Any DSNs which
result from delivery failure of the forwarded message will not be
returned to the original sender of the message and thus not expose the
recipient's forwarding address.
6.2.8 DSNs describing delivery to multiple recipients
A single DSN may describe attempts to deliver a message to multiple
recipients of that message. If a DSN is issued for some recipients in
an SMTP transaction and not for others according to the rules above, the
DSN SHOULD NOT contain information for recipients for whom DSNs would
not otherwise have been issued.
6.3 Handling of messages from other sources
For messages which originated from "local" users (whatever that means),
the specifications under which DSNs should be generated can be
communicated to the MTA via any protocol agreed on between the sender's
mail composer (user agent) and the MTA. The local MTA can then either
relay the message, or issue appropriate delivery status notifications.
However, if such requests are transmitted within the message itself (for
example in the message headers), the requests MUST be removed from the
message before it is transmitted via SMTP.
For messages gatewayed from non-SMTP sources and further relayed by
SMTP, the gateway SHOULD, using the SMTP extensions described here,
attempt to provide the delivery reporting conditions expected by the
source mail environment. If appropriate, any DSNs returned to the
source environment SHOULD be translated into the format expected in that
environment.
6.4 Implementation limits
A conforming MTA MUST accept ESMTP parameters of at least the following
sizes:
(a) ENVID parameter: 100 characters.
(b) NOTIFY parameter: 28 characters.
(c) ORCPT parameter: 500 characters.
(d) RET parameter: 8 characters.
The maximum sizes for the ENVID and ORCPT parameters are intended to be
adequate for the transmission of "foreign" envelope identifier and
original recipient addresses. However, user agents which use SMTP as a
message submission protocol SHOULD NOT generate ENVID parameters which
are longer than 38 characters in length.
A conforming MTA MUST be able to accept SMTP command-lines which are at
least 1036 characters long (530 characters for the ORCPT and NOTIFY
parameters of the RCPT command, in addition to the 512 characters
required by [1]). If other SMTP extensions are supported by the MTA,
the MTA MUST be able to accept a command-line large enough for each SMTP
command and any combination of ESMTP parameters which may be used with
that command.
7. Format of delivery notifications
The format of delivery status notifications is defined in [5], which
uses the framework defined in [8]. Delivery status notifications are to
be returned to the sender of the original message as outlined below.
7.1 SMTP Envelope to be used with delivery status notifications
The DSN sender address (in the SMTP MAIL command) MUST be a null
reverse-path ("<>"), as required by section 5.3.3 of [9]. The DSN
recipient address (in the RCPT command) is copied from the MAIL command
which accompanied the message for which the DSN is being issued. When
transmitting a DSN via SMTP, the RET parameter MUST NOT be used. The
NOTIFY parameter MAY be used, but its value MUST be NEVER. The ENVID
parameter (with a newly generated envelope-id) and/or ORCPT parameter
MAY be used.
7.2 Contents of the DSN
A DSN is transmitted as a MIME message with a top-level content-type of
multipart/report (as defined in [5]).
The multipart/report content-type may be used for any of several kinds
of reports generated by the mail system. When multipart/report is used
to convey a DSN, the report-type parameter of the multipart/report
content-type is "delivery-status".
As described in [8], the first component of a multipart/report content-
type is a human readable explanation of the report. For a DSN, the
second component of the multipart/report is of content-type
message/delivery-status (defined in [5]). The third component of the
multipart/report consists of the original message or some portion
thereof. When the value of the RET parameter is FULL, the full message
SHOULD be returned for any DSN which conveys notification of delivery
failure. (However, if the length of the message is greater than some
implementation-specified length, the MTA MAY return only the headers
even if the RET parameter specified FULL.) If a DSN contains no
notifications of delivery failure, the MTA SHOULD return only the
headers.
The third component must have an appropriate content-type label. Issues
concerning selection of the content-type are discussed in [8].
7.3 Message/delivery-status fields
The message/delivery-status content-type defines a number of fields,
with general specifications for their contents. The following
requirements for any DSNs generated in response to a message received by
the SMTP protocol by a conforming SMTP server, are in addition to the
requirements defined in [5] for the message/delivery-status type.
When generating a DSN for a message which was received via the SMTP
protocol, a conforming MTA will generate the following fields of the
message/delivery-status body part:
(a) if an ENVID parameter was present on the MAIL command, an
Original-Envelope-ID field MUST be supplied, and the value
associated with the ENVID parameter must appear in that field. If
the message was received via SMTP with no ENVID parameter, the
Original-Envelope-ID field MUST NOT be supplied.
Since the ENVID parameter is encoded as xtext, but the
Original-Envelope-ID header is NOT encoded as xtext, the MTA must
decode the xtext encoding when copying the ENVID value to the
Original-Envelope-ID field.
(b) The Reporting-MTA field MUST be supplied. If Reporting MTA can
determine its fully-qualified Internet domain name, the MTA-name-
type subfield MUST be "dns", and the field MUST contain the fully-
qualified domain name of the Reporting MTA. If the fully-qualified
Internet domain name of the Reporting MTA is not known (for
example, for an SMTP server which is not directly connected to the
Internet), the Reporting-MTA field may contain any string
identifying the MTA, however, in this case the MTA-name-type
subfield MUST NOT be "dns". A MTA-name-type subfield value of
"x-local-hostname" is suggested.
(c) Other per-message fields as defined in [5] MAY be supplied as
appropriate.
(d) If the ORCPT parameter was provided for this recipient, the
Original-Recipient field MUST be supplied, with its value taken
from the ORCPT parameter. If no ORCPT parameter was provided for
this recipient, the Original-Recipient field MUST NOT appear.
(e) The Final-Recipient field MUST be supplied. It MUST contain the
recipient address from the message envelope. If the message was
received via SMTP, the address-type will be "rfc822".
(f) The Action field MUST be supplied.
(g) The Status field MUST be supplied, using a status-code from [10].
If there is no specific code which suitably describes a delivery
failure, either 4.0.0 (temporary failure), or 5.0.0 (permanent
failure) MUST be used.
(h) For DSNs resulting from attempts to relay a message to one or more
recipients via SMTP, the Remote-MTA field MUST be supplied for each
of those recipients. The mta-name-type subfields of those Remote-
MTA fields will be "dns".
(i) For DSNs resulting from attempts to relay a message to one or more
recipients via SMTP, the Diagnostic-Code MUST be supplied for each
of those recipients. The diagnostic-type subfield will be "smtp".
See section 9.2(a) of this document for a description of the "smtp"
diagnostic-code.
(j) For DSNs resulting from attempts to relay a message to one or more
recipients via SMTP, an SMTP-Remote-Recipient extension field MAY
be supplied for each recipient, which contains the address of that
recpient which was presented to the remote SMTP server.
(k) Other per-recipient fields defined in [5] MAY appear, as
appropriate.
8. Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Eric Allman, Harald Alvestrand, Jim Conklin,
Bryan Costales, Peter Cowen, Dave Crocker, Roger Fajman, Ned Freed,
Marko Kaittola, Steve Kille, John Klensin, Anastasios Kotsikonas, John
Gardiner Myers, Julian Onions, Jacob Palme, Marshall Rose, Greg
Vaudreuil, and Klaus Weide for their suggestions for improvement of this
document.
9. Appendix - Type-Name Definitions
The following type names are defined for use in DSN fields generated by
conforming SMTP-based MTAs:
9.1 "rfc822" address-type
The "rfc822" address-type is to be used when reporting Internet
electronic mail address in the Original-Recipient and Final-Recipient
DSN fields.
(a) address-type name: rfc822
(b) syntax for mailbox addresses
RFC822 mailbox addresses are generally expected to be of the form
[route] addr-spec
where "route" and "addr-spec" are defined in [2], and the "domain"
portions of both "route" and "addr-spec" are fully-qualified domain
names that are registered in the DNS. However, an MTA MUST NOT
modify an address obtained from the message envelope to force it to
conform to syntax rules.
(c) If addresses of this type are not composed entirely of graphic
characters from the US-ASCII repertoire, a specification for how
they are to be encoded as graphic US-ASCII characters in a DSN
Original-Recipient or Final-Recipient DSN field.
RFC822 addresses consist entirely of graphic characters from the
US-ASCII repertoire, so no translation is necessary.
9.2 "smtp" diagnostic-type
The "smtp" diagnostic-type is to be used when reporting SMTP reply-codes
in Diagnostic-Code DSN fields.
(a) diagnostic-type name: SMTP
(b) A description of the syntax to be used for expressing diagnostic
codes of this type as graphic characters from the US-ASCII
repertoire.
An SMTP diagnostic-code is of the form
*( 3*DIGIT "-" *text ) 3*DIGIT SPACE *text
For a single-line SMTP reply to an SMTP command, the diagnostic-
code SHOULD be an exact transcription of the reply. For multi-line
SMTP replies, it is necessary to insert a SPACE before each line
after the first. For example, an SMTP reply of:
550-mailbox unavailable
550 user has moved with no forwarding address
could appear as follows in a Diagnostic-Code DSN field:
Diagnostic-Code: smtp ; 550-mailbox unavailable
550 user has moved with no forwarding address
(c) A list of valid diagnostic codes of this type and the meaning of
each code.
SMTP reply-codes are currently defined in [1], [4], and [9]. Additional
codes may be defined by other RFCs.
9.3 "dns" MTA-name-type
The "dns" MTA-name-type should be used in the Reporting-MTA field. An
MTA-name of type "dns" is a fully-qualified domain name. The name must
be registered in the DNS, and the address Postmaster@{mta-name} must be
valid.
(a) MTA-name-type name: dns
(b) A description of the syntax of MTA names of this type, using BNF,
regular expressions, ASN.1, or other non-ambiguous language.
MTA names of type "dns" SHOULD be valid Internet domain names. If
such domain names are not available, a domain-literal containing
the internet protocol address is acceptable. Such domain names
generally conform to the following syntax:
domain = real-domain / domain-literal
real-domain = sub-domain *("." sub-domain)
sub-domain = atom
domain-literal = "[" 1*3DIGIT 3("." 1*3DIGIT) "]"
where "atom" and "DIGIT" are defined in [2].
(c) If MTA names of this type do not consist entirely of graphic
characters from the US-ASCII repertoire, a specification for how an
MTA name of this type should be expressed as a sequence of graphic
US-ASCII characters.
MTA names of type "dns" consist entirely of graphic US-ASCII characters,
so no translation is needed.
10. Appendix - Example
This example traces the flow of a single message addressed to multiple
recipients. The message is sent by Alice@Example.ORG to
Bob@Example.COM, Carol@Ivory.EDU, Dana@Ivory.EDU, Eric@Bombs.AF.MIL,
Fred@Bombs.AF.MIL, and George@Tax-ME.GOV, with a variety of per-
recipient options. The message is successfully delivered to Bob, Dana
(via a gateway), Eric, and Fred. Delivery fails for Carol and George.
NOTE: Formatting rules for RFCs require that no line be longer than 72
characters. Therefore, in the following examples, some SMTP commands
longer than 72 characters are printed on two lines, with the first line
ending in "\". In an actual SMTP transaction, such a command would be
sent as a single line (i.e. with no embedded CRLFs), and without the "\"
character that appears in these examples.
10.1 Submission
Alice's user agent sends the message to the SMTP server at Example.ORG.
Note that while this example uses SMTP as a mail submission protocol,
other protocols could also be used.
<<< 220 Example.ORG SMTP server here
>>> EHLO Example.ORG
<<< 250-Example.ORG
<<< 250-DSN
<<< 250-EXPN
<<< 250 SIZE
>>> MAIL FROM:<Alice@Example.ORG> RET=HDRS ENVID=QQ314159
<<< 250 <Alice@Example.ORG> sender ok
>>> RCPT TO:<Bob@Example.COM> NOTIFY=SUCCESS \
ORCPT=rfc822;Bob@Example.COM
<<< 250 <Bob@Example.COM> recipient ok
>>> RCPT TO:<Carol@Ivory.EDU> NOTIFY=FAILURE \
ORCPT=rfc822;Carol@Ivory.EDU
<<< 250 <Carol@Ivory.EDU> recipient ok
>>> RCPT TO:<Dana@Ivory.EDU> NOTIFY=SUCCESS,FAILURE \
ORCPT=rfc822;Dana@Ivory.EDU
<<< 250 <Dana@Ivory.EDU> recipient ok
>>> RCPT TO:<Eric@Bombs.AF.MIL> NOTIFY=FAILURE \
ORCPT=rfc822;Eric@Bombs.AF.MIL
<<< 250 <Eric@Bombs.AF.MIL> recipient ok
>>> RCPT TO:<Fred@Bombs.AF.MIL> NOTIFY=NEVER
<<< 250 <Fred@Bombs.AF.MIL> recipient ok
>>> RCPT TO:<George@Tax-ME.GOV> NOTIFY=FAILURE \
ORCPT=rfc822;George@Tax-ME.GOV
<<< 250 <George@Tax-ME.GOV> recipient ok
>>> DATA
<<< 354 okay, send message
>>> (message goes here)
>>> .
<<< 250 message accepted
>>> QUIT
<<< 221 goodbye
10.2 Relay to Example.COM
The SMTP at Example.ORG then relays the message to Example.COM. (For
the purpose of this example, mail.Example.COM is the primary mail
exchanger for Example.COM).
<<< 220 mail.Example.COM says hello
>>> EHLO Example.ORG
<<< 250-mail.Example.COM
<<< 250 DSN
>>> MAIL FROM:<Alice@Example.ORG> RET=HDRS ENVID=QQ314159
<<< 250 sender okay
>>> RCPT TO:<Bob@Example.COM> NOTIFY=SUCCESS \
ORCPT=rfc822;Bob@Example.COM
<<< 250 recipient okay
>>> DATA
<<< 354 send message
>>> (message goes here)
>>> .
<<< 250 message received
>>> QUIT
<<< 221 bcnu
10.3 Relay to Ivory.EDU
The SMTP at Example.ORG relays the message to Ivory.EDU, which (as it
happens) is a gateway to a LAN-based mail system that accepts SMTP mail
and supports the DSN extension.
<<< 220 Ivory.EDU gateway to FooMail(tm) here
>>> EHLO Example.ORG
<<< 250-Ivory.EDU
<<< 250 DSN
>>> MAIL FROM:<Alice@Example.ORG> RET=HDRS ENVID=QQ314159
<<< 250 ok
>>> RCPT TO:<Carol@Ivory.EDU> NOTIFY=FAILURE \
ORCPT=rfc822;Carol@Ivory.EDU
<<< 550 error - no such recipient
>>> RCPT TO:<Dana@Ivory.EDU> NOTIFY=SUCCESS,FAILURE \
ORCPT=rfc822;Dana@Ivory.EDU
<<< 250 recipient ok
>>> DATA
<<< 354 send message, end with '.'
>>> (message goes here)
>>> .
<<< 250 message received
>>> QUIT
<<< 221 bye
Note that since the Ivory.EDU refused to accept mail for
Carol@Ivory.EDU, and the sender specified NOTIFY=FAILURE, the sender-
SMTP (in this case Example.ORG) must generate a DSN.
10.4 Relay to Bombs.AF.MIL
The SMTP at Example.ORG relays the message to Bombs.AF.MIL, which does
not support the SMTP extension. Because the sender specified
NOTIFY=NEVER for recipient Fred@Bombs.AF.MIL, the SMTP at Example.ORG
chooses to send the message for that recipient in a separate transaction
with a reverse-path of <>.
<<< 220-Bombs.AF.MIL reporting for duty.
<<< 220 Electronic mail is to be used for official business only.
>>> EHLO Example.ORG
<<< 502 command not implemented
>>> RSET
<<< 250 reset
>>> HELO Example.ORG
<<< 250 Bombs.AF.MIL
>>> MAIL FROM:<Alice@Example.ORG>
<<< 250 ok
>>> RCPT TO:<Eric@Bombs.AF.MIL>
<<< 250 ok
>>> DATA
<<< 354 send message
>>> (message goes here)
>>> .
<<< 250 message accepted
>>> MAIL FROM:<>
<<< 250 ok
>>> RCPT TO:<Fred@Bombs.AF.MIL>
<<< 250 ok
>>> DATA
<<< 354 send message
>>> (message goes here)
>>> .
<<< 250 message accepted
>>> QUIT
<<< 221 Bombs.AF.MIL closing connection
10.5 Forward from George@Tax-ME.GOV to Sam@Boondoggle.GOV
The SMTP at Example.ORG relays the message to Tax-ME.GOV. (this step is
not shown). MTA Tax-ME.GOV then forwards the message to
Sam@Boondoggle.GOV (shown below). Both Tax-ME.GOV and Example.ORG
support the SMTP DSN extension. Note that RET, ENVID, and ORCPT all
retain their original values.
<<< 220 BoonDoggle.GOV says hello
>>> EHLO Example.ORG
<<< 250-mail.Example.COM
<<< 250 DSN
>>> MAIL FROM:<Alice@Example.ORG> RET=HDRS ENVID=QQ314159
<<< 250 sender okay
>>> RCPT TO:<Sam@Boondoggle.GOV> NOTIFY=SUCCESS \
ORCPT=rfc822;George@Tax-ME.GOV
<<< 250 recipient okay
>>> DATA
<<< 354 send message
>>> (message goes here)
>>> .
<<< 250 message received
>>> QUIT
<<< 221 bcnu
10.6 "Delivered" DSN for Bob@Example.COM
MTA mail.Example.COM successfully delivers the message to
Bob@Example.COM. Because the sender specified NOTIFY=SUCCESS,
mail.Example.COM issues the following DSN, and sends it to
Alice@Example.ORG.
To: Alice@Example.ORG
From: postmaster@mail.Example.COM
Subject: Delivery Notification (success) for Bob@Example.COM
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary=abcde
MIME-Version: 1.0
--abcde
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Your message (id QQ314159) was successfully delivered to
Bob@Example.COM.
--abcde
Content-type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: dns; mail.Example.COM
Original-Envelope-ID: QQ314159
Original-Recipient: rfc822;Bob@Example.COM
Final-Recipient: rfc822;Bob@Example.COM
Action: delivered
Status: 2.0.0
--abcde
Content-type: message/rfc822
(headers of returned message go here)
--abcde--
10.7 Failed DSN for Carol@Ivory.EDU
Because delivery to Carol failed and the sender specified NOTIFY=FAILURE
for Carol@Ivory.EDU, MTA Example.ORG (the SMTP client to which the
failure was reported via SMTP) issues the following DSN.
To: Alice@Example.ORG
From: postmaster@Example.ORG
Subject: Delivery Notification (failure) for Carol@Ivory.EDU
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary=bcdef
MIME-Version: 1.0
--bcdef
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Your message (id QQ314159) could not be delivered to
Carol@Ivory.EDU.
A transcript of the session follows:
(while talking to Ivory.EDU)
>>> RCPT TO:<Carol@Ivory.EDU> NOTIFY=FAILURE
<<< 550 error - no such recipient
--bcdef
Content-type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: dns; Example.ORG
Original-Envelope-ID: QQ314159
Original-Recipient: rfc822;Carol@Ivory.EDU
Final-Recipient: rfc822;Carol@Ivory.EDU
SMTP-Remote-Recipient: Carol@Ivory.EDU
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 error - no such recipient
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
--bcdef
Content-type: message/rfc822
(headers of returned message go here)
--bcdef--
10.8 Relayed DSN For Dana@Ivory.EDU
Although the mail gateway Ivory.EDU supports the DSN SMTP extension, the
LAN mail system attached to its other side does not generate positive
delivery confirmations. So Ivory.EDU issues a "relayed" DSN:
To: Alice@Example.ORG
From: postmaster@Ivory.EDU
Subject: mail relayed for Dana@Ivory.EDU
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary=cdefg
MIME-Version: 1.0
--cdefg
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Your message (addressed to Dana@Ivory.EDU) was successfully
relayed to:
ymail!Dana
by the FooMail gateway at Ivory.EDU.
Unfortunately, the remote mail system does not support
confirmation of actual delivery. Unless delivery to ymail!Dana
fails, this will be the only delivery status notification sent.
--cdefg
Content-type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: dns; Ivory.EDU
Original-Envelope-ID: QQ314159
Original-Recipient: rfc822;Dana@Ivory.EDU
Final-Recipient: rfc822;Dana@Ivory.EDU
Action: relayed
Status: 2.0.0
--cdefg
Content-type: message/rfc822
(headers of returned message go here)
--cdefg--
10.9 Failure notification for Sam@Boondoggle.GOV
The message originally addressed to George@Tax-ME.GOV was forwarded to
Sam@Boondoggle.GOV, but the MTA for Boondoggle.GOV was unable to deliver
the message due to a lack of disk space in Sam's mailbox. After trying
for several days, Boondoggle.GOV returned the following DSN:
To: Alice@Example.ORG
From: Postmaster@Boondoggle.GOV
Subject: Delivery failure for Sam@Boondoggle.GOV
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary=defgh
MIME-Version: 1.0
--defgh
Your message, originally addressed to George@Tax-ME.GOV, and forwarded
from there to Sam@Boondoggle.GOV could not be delivered, for the
following reason:
write error to mailbox, disk quota exceeded
--defgh
Content-type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: Boondoggle.GOV
Original-Envelope-ID: QQ314159
Original-Recipient: rfc822;George@Tax-ME.GOV
Final-Recipient: rfc822;Sam@Boondoggle.GOV
Action: failed
Status: 4.2.2 (disk quota exceeded)
--defgh
Content-type: message/rfc822
(headers of returned message go here)
--defgh--
11. References
References are marked as either normative or non-normative. A normative
reference is used to refer to a specification which must be adhered to
in order to conform to this specification, such references are thus
effectively incorporated into this specification. A non-normative ref-
erence does not impose requirements on the implementation; they are
included to provide information which might be useful to readers or
implementors.
[1] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821,
August 1982. [normative]
[2] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982. [normative]
[3] Westine, A., and J. Postel, "Problems with the Maintenance of Large
Mailing Lists.", RFC 1211, March 1991. [non-normative]
[4] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D. Crocker,
"SMTP Service Extensions", RFC 1869, November 1995. [normative]
[5] Moore, K., and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for
Delivery Status Notifications", Internet-Draft
draft-vaudreuil-rfc1894bis-00.txt (work in progress), June 2001.
[normative]
[6] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4rev1", RFC 3461
RFC 2060, December 1996. [non-normative]
[7] Myers, J., and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3", RFC Title: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service
1939, May 1996. [non-normative] Extension for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs)
Author(s): K. Moore
Status: Standards Track
Date: January 2003
Mailbox: moore@cs.utk.edu
Pages: 38
Characters: 76076
Obsoletes: 1891
[8] Vaudreuil, G., "The Multipart/Report Content Type for the Reporting I-D Tag: draft-moore-rfc1891bis-02.txt
of Mail System Administrative Messages", Internet-Draft
draft-vaudreuil-rfc1892bis-00.txt (work in progress), June 2001.
[normative]
[9] Braden, R., Editor, "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application URL: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3461.txt
and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989. [non-normative]
[10] Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", Internet-Draft This memo defines an extension to the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
draft-vaudreuil-rfc1893bis-00.txt (work in progress), June 2001. (SMTP) service, which allows an SMTP client to specify (a) that
[normative] Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs) should be generated under certain
conditions, (b) whether such notifications should return the contents
of the message, and (c) additional information, to be returned with a
DSN, that allows the sender to identify both the recipient(s) for
which the DSN was issued, and the transaction in which the original
message was sent.
12. Author's Address This is now a Draft Standard Protocol.
Keith Moore This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for
University of Tennessee the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
1122 Volunteer Blvd, Suite 203 for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the
Knoxville, TN 37996-3450 "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the
USA standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution
of this memo is unlimited.
EMail: moore@cs.utk.edu This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be
added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should
be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.
Appendix - Changes since RFC 1891 Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body
help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example:
- added internet-draft boilerplate, "status of this memo" section To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG
Subject: getting rfcs
- updated author's address help: ways_to_get_rfcs
- In examples, changed Pure-Heart.ORG and Big-Bucks.COM to Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
Example.ORG and Example.COM, respectively. Since publication of author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless
RFC 1891, the former two domains have been registered. specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.echo
Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC
Authors, for further information.
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
1497 lines changed or deleted 39 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/