RFC1891 日本語訳
1891 SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications. K.Moore. January 1996. (Format: TXT=65192 bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC3461) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
プログラムでの自動翻訳です。
RFC一覧
英語原文
Network Working Group K. Moore Request for Comments: 1891 University of Tennessee Category: Standards Track January 1996
Network Working Group K. Moore Request for Comments: 1891 University of Tennessee Category: Standards Track January 1996
SMTP Service Extension
for Delivery Status Notifications
SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications
Status of this Memo
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
1. Abstract
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.
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.
Any questions, comments, and reports of defects or ambiguities in this specification may be sent to the mailing list for the NOTARY working group of the IETF, using the address <notifications@cs.utk.edu>. Requests to subscribe to the mailing list should be addressed to <notifications-request@cs.utk.edu>. Implementors of this specification are encouraged to subscribe to the mailing list, so that they will quickly be informed of any problems which might hinder interoperability.
Any questions, comments, and reports of defects or ambiguities in this specification may be sent to the mailing list for the NOTARY working group of the IETF, using the address <notifications@cs.utk.edu>. Requests to subscribe to the mailing list should be addressed to <notifications-request@cs.utk.edu>. Implementors of this specification are encouraged to subscribe to the mailing list, so that they will quickly be informed of any problems which might hinder interoperability.
NOTE: This document is a Proposed Standard. If and when this protocol is submitted for Draft Standard status, any normative text (phrases containing SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, MUST, MUST NOT, or MAY) in this document will be re-evaluated in light of implementation experience, and are thus subject to change.
NOTE: This document is a Proposed Standard. If and when this protocol is submitted for Draft Standard status, any normative text (phrases containing SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, MUST, MUST NOT, or MAY) in this document will be re-evaluated in light of implementation experience, and are thus subject to change.
2. Introduction
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 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
Moore Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
the SMTP MAIL command), containing an explanation of the error and at least the headers of the failed message.
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.
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:
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,
(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,
(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,
(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
(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.
(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].
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].
Moore Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
3. Framework for the Delivery Status Notification Extension
3. Framework for the Delivery Status Notification Extension
The following service extension is therefore defined:
The following service extension is therefore defined:
(1) The name of the SMTP service extension is "Delivery Status
Notification";
(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;
(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;
(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:
(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 "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 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 "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;
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.
(5) no additional SMTP verbs are defined by this extension.
The remainder of this memo specifies how support for the extension effects the behavior of a message transfer agent.
The remainder of this memo specifies how support for the extension effects the behavior of a message transfer agent.
4. The Delivery Status Notification service extension
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
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
Moore Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
keyword DSN, then the Delivery Status Notification extension (as described in this memo) is supported.
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.
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 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:
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.
(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.
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.
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.
(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.
Moore Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
5. Additional parameters for RCPT and MAIL commands
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].
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.
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:
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 )
xtext = *( xchar / hexchar )
xchar = any ASCII CHAR between "!" (33) and "~" (126) inclusive,
except for "+" and "=".
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"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
hexchar = ASCII "+" immediately followed by two upper case hexadecimal digits
When encoding an octet sequence as xtext:
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.)
+ 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".
+ ASCII CHARs that fall outside the range above must be encoded as "hexchar".
5.1 The NOTIFY parameter of the ESMTP RCPT command
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,
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,
Moore Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
formatted according to the following rules, using the ABNF of RFC 822:
formatted according to the following rules, using the ABNF of RFC 822:
notify-esmtp-value = "NEVER" / 1#notify-list-element
notify-esmtp-value = "NEVER" / 1#notify-list-element
notify-list-element = "SUCCESS" / "FAILURE" / "DELAY"
notify-list-element = "SUCCESS" / "FAILURE" / "DELAY"
Notes:
Notes:
a. Multiple notify-list-elements, separated by commas, MAY appear in a NOTIFY parameter; however, the NEVER keyword MUST appear by itself.
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.
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:
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 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 "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.
+ 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.
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.
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
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:
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:
Moore Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
orcpt-parameter = "ORCPT=" original-recipient-address
orcpt-parameter = "ORCPT=" original-recipient-address
original-recipient-address = addr-type ";" xtext
original-recipient-address = addr-type ";" xtext
addr-type = atom
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.
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.)
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".
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
HDRS requests that only the headers of the message be returned.
Moore Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
The FULL and HDRS keywords may be spelled in any combination of upper and lower case letters.
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.
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.
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
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 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:
The ABNF for the ENVID parameter is:
envid-parameter = "ENVID=" xtext
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.
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
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 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".
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
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
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
Moore Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
(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").
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.
(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".
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".
Moore Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
6.2 Handling of messages received via SMTP
6.2 Handling of messages received via SMTP
This section describes how a conforming MTA should handle any 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.
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.
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
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:
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.
(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.
(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.
Moore Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
(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.
また、(c) メッセージを受け取ったとき、NOTIFYパラメタを受取人に提供したなら、メッセージがリレーされるとき発行されたRCPTコマンドは関連esmtp-値に伴うNOTIFYパラメタを含まなければなりません。 メッセージをリレーするとき、メッセージを受け取ったとき、NOTIFYパラメタを受取人に提供しなかったなら、NOTIFYパラメタをその受取人に提供してはいけません。
(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.)
(d) メッセージを受け取ったとき、何かORCPTパラメタが受取人のためにRCPTコマンドで存在していたなら、同じオリジナルの受取人アドレスがあるORCPTパラメタはメッセージをリレーするときその受取人のために発行されたRCPTコマンドに現れなければなりません。 (例えば、したがって、MTAはORCPTパラメタにおける、どんな英字に関するケースも変えてはいけません。)
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.
メッセージがリレーされるとき、メッセージを受け取ったとき、どんなORCPTパラメタもRCPTコマンドで存在していなかったなら、ORCPTパラメタはRCPTコマンドに追加されるかもしれません。 ORCPTパラメタがリレーしているMTAによって加えられるなら、それはメッセージがそのMTAによって受け取られたとき使用されるRCPTコマンドからの受取人アドレスを含まなければなりません。
6.2.2 Relay of messages to non-conforming SMTP servers
6.2.2 非の従うSMTPサーバーへのメッセージのリレー
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:
SMTPプロトコルで受け取られたメッセージをリレーするとき、以下の規則は従うMTA(クライアントの役割における)の動きを治めます、Delivery Status Notificationサービス拡張子をサポートしないSMTPサーバーに:
(a) ENVID, NOTIFY, RET, or ORCPT parameters MUST NOT be issued when
relaying the message.
(a) メッセージをリレーするとき、ENVID、NOTIFY、RET、またはORCPTパラメタを発行してはいけません。
(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.
(b) NOTIFYパラメタを受取人に提供したなら、esmtp値がサーバがRCPTコマンドに対応して成功(2xx)回答コードを返すキーワードSUCCESS、およびSMTPを含んでいて、クライアントはその受取人のために「リレーされた」DSNを発行しなければなりません。
(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.
(c) NOTIFYパラメタはキーワードFAILURE、およびSMTPを含んでいるesmtp値を受取人に提供したなら、サーバはRCPTコマンドに対応して永久的な失敗(5xx)回答コードを返します、とクライアントがその受取人のために「失敗した」DSNを発行しなければなりません。
(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.
(d) NOTIFYパラメタはesmtpを受取人に提供したなら、まさか、クライアントの値がその受取人のためにDSNを発行してはいけません、SMTPサーバーによって返された回答コードにかかわらず。クライアント自身がサーバが失敗(5xx)回答コードを返したなら配信障害についてそうしない適切な手段でどのように地元の郵便局長を知らせても、DSNsの世代では、なってください。
Moore Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
ムーアStandardsはSMTP配送状態通知1996年1月にRFC1891を追跡します[11ページ]。
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].
この拡大を支持しないSMTPサーバーに伝言を伝えるのを試みるとき、NOTIFY=がそのメッセージの何人かの受取人に決して指定されなかったなら、従っているSMTPクライアントはそれらの受取人のために別々のSMTP取引でメッセージをリレーするかもしれません、メールコマンドに人影のない逆経路を使用して。 これは、DSNsがそれらの受取人のために[1]に従うMTAsによって発行されるのを防ぐでしょう。
(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.
(e) NOTIFYパラメタが提供されなかったなら、RCPTコマンド、クライアントに対応した成功(2xx)回答コードがそうしてはいけない受取人、およびSMTPサーバーリターンには、その受取人のためのあらゆるDSNを発行してください。
(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.
(f) NOTIFYパラメタが提供されなかったなら、RCPTコマンド、クライアントに対応した永久的な失敗(5xx)回答コードがそうしなければならない受取人、およびSMTPサーバーリターンには、その受取人のための「失敗した」DSNを発行してください。
6.2.3 Local delivery of messages
6.2.3 メッセージの地方の配送
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:
以下の規則はSMTPプロトコルで受け取られたメッセージのうまくいっている配送の従うMTAの動きを治めます、地方の受信者のメールボックスに:
"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.
「配送」は、メッセージが受信者のメールボックスに置かれたことを意味します。 メッセージが受取人のユーザエージェントによって検索される時よりむしろIMAP(POPなど)サービスがメッセージを入手するとき、後の検索のためにIMAP[6]、POP[7]または同様のメッセージアクセス・プロトコルでメールボックスに送られるメッセージに関しては、「配送」は起こります。
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.
そのリスト発破器がメッセージを入手するとき、同様に、メーリングリスト発破器に一致している受取人アドレスのために「配送」は起こります、リスト発破器が、そのメッセージをリスト受取人に送るのを拒否するかもしれませんが。
(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.
(a) NOTIFYパラメタをその受取人に提供したなら、esmtp-値がSUCCESSキーワードを含んでいて、MTA MUSTはその受取人のために「渡された」DSNを発行します。
(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.
(b) NOTIFYパラメタをその受取人に提供したなら、(SUCCESSキーワードを含みませんでした)MTA MUST NOTはその受取人のためにDSNを発行します。
(c) If the NOTIFY parameter was not supplied for that recipient, the MTA
MUST NOT issue a DSN.
(c) NOTIFYパラメタがその受取人に提供されなかったなら、MTA MUST NOTはDSNを発行します。
Moore Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
ムーアStandardsはSMTP配送状態通知1996年1月にRFC1891を追跡します[12ページ]。
6.2.4 Gatewaying a message into a foreign environment
6.2.4 外国環境にメッセージをGatewayingすること。
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:
SMTPプロトコルで受け取られたメッセージをgatewayingするとき、以下の規則は従うMTAの動きを治めます、外国(非SMTPの)の環境に:
(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.
(a) 外国環境が発行できるなら、状態の適切な通知は、MTAがこのようにして発行されたどんな通知もDSNに翻訳して、元の送り主に提供して、次に、MTA SHOULDゲートウェイが外国環境へのメッセージであることを確実にすることができるようNOTIFYパラメタ、および従うことで要求しました、必要な条件のもとで通知を要求して、それ自体がDSNを発行しないで。
(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.
(b) SUCCESSキーワードをNOTIFYパラメタに供給しましたが、目的地環境がうまくいっている配送に関する適切な通知を返すことができないなら、MTA SHOULDはその受取人のために「リレーされた」DSNを発行します。
(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.
(c) まさか、DSN MUST NOTに関するesmtp-キーワードをNOTIFYパラメタに供給したなら、発行してください。 できれば、MTA SHOULDは、その受取人のために配送通知を発行しないよう目的地環境に指示します。
(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.
(d) NOTIFYであるなら特定の受取人、DSN SHOULD NOTにパラメタを提供しませんでした。ゲートウェイで、発行します。 ゲートウェイSHOULDは、最後の配信障害が起こると外国メール環境で適切な通知を提供して、うまくいっている配送のときに通知を全く発行しないのを保証するのを試みます。
(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.
(e) -内容では、どんなRETパラメタによっても指定された状態が拘束力がないという外国環境、リターンへのメッセージをgatewayingするとき。 しかしながら、MTA SHOULDは、外国環境で存在するどんなメカニズムも使用することで要求を光栄に思うのを試みます。
6.2.5 Delays in delivery
6.2.5 配送の遅れ
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:
従うMTAが拡張長さの時間(MTAによって決定される)の1人以上の受取人にメッセージをSMTPプロトコルでメッセージを受け取って、送るか、またはリレーできないなら、以下の条件を条件としたそれらの受取人のために「遅らせられた」DSNを発行するかもしれません:
(a) If the NOTIFY parameter was supplied for a recipient and its value
included the DELAY keyword, a "delayed" DSN MAY be issued.
(a) 受取人に提供されて、値を含めるのが、DELAYキーワード、「延着」であったというNOTIFYパラメタDSN MAYであるなら、発行されてください。
(b) If the NOTIFY parameter was not supplied for a recipient, a
"delayed" DSN MAY be issued.
(b) 受取人に関して、aが「延着した」というDSN MAYがNOTIFYパラメタに供給されなかったなら、発行されてください。
Moore Standards Track [Page 13] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
ムーアStandardsはSMTP配送状態通知1996年1月にRFC1891を追跡します[13ページ]。
(c) If the NOTIFY parameter was supplied which did not contain the DELAY
keyword, a "delayed" DSN MUST NOT be issued.
(c) DELAYキーワード、「遅らせられた」DSN MUST NOTを含まなかったNOTIFYパラメタを提供したなら、発行してください。
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.
以下に注意してください。 遅れ通知は現代の電子メールで一般的ですが、従うMTAは、「遅らせられた」DSNsを発行するのに決して必要ではありません。 SMTPクライアントが、「遅らせられた」DSNsが発行されないよう明確に要求するのを(DELAYパラメタを省略することによって)許容するためにNOTIFYパラメタに関するDELAYキーワードを提供します。
6.2.6 Failure of a conforming MTA to deliver a message
6.2.6 従うMTAが伝言をもたらさないこと
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:
以下の規則はSMTPプロトコルでメッセージを受け取って、SMTP取引で指定された受取人に伝言をもたらすことができない従うMTAの動きを治めます:
(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.
(a) NOTIFYパラメタを提供したなら、esmtpキーワードが値のFAILURE、「失敗した」DSN MUSTを含んでいる受取人に関して、MTAは発行してください。
(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.
(b) NOTIFYパラメタを受取人に提供したなら、(値のFAILURE、DSN MUST NOTを含みませんでした)その受取人には、発行してください。 しかしながら、MTA MAYは配信障害についてDSNsの世代における結果自体ではなく、何らかの適切な手段で地元の郵便局長を知らせます。
(c) If no NOTIFY parameter was supplied for the recipient, a "failed"
DSN MUST be issued.
(c) 受取人に関して、aが「失敗した」というDSN MUSTをどんなNOTIFYパラメタにも供給しなかったなら、発行してください。
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".
以下に注意してください。 いくつかのMTAsが前方で地元の郵便局長か「配達不能郵便物」メールボックスへのメッセージを「非-提出物」するのが知られています。 これは、配信障害であるとまだ考えられていて、このメモのほかの場所で定義された条件のもとで「失敗した」DSNを発行するという要件を減少させません。 DSNがそのような受取人のために発行されるなら、Action値は「失敗されなければなりません」。
6.2.7 Forwarding, aliases, and mailing lists
6.2.7 推進、別名、およびメーリングリスト
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.
通常、ローカルのEメールアドレスへのメッセージの配送は受信者のメールボックスの中に格納されるべきメッセージを引き起こします。 しかしながら、MTAsは一般的に、「別名」か「メーリングリスト」としてローカルのEメールアドレスを指定できる施設を提供します。 そして、そのアドレスへの配送は別名かリストに関連づけられたそれぞれの(地方かリモート)の受取人アドレスに送られるべきメッセージを引き起こします。 また、ユーザが任意に彼女のメールを1つ以上の代替アドレスに「進めること」を許容するのも一般的です。 この特徴を可能にするなら、彼女のメールボックスに預けられることの代わりにそれらのアドレスに彼女のメールを再配付します。
Moore Standards Track [Page 14] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
ムーアStandardsはSMTP配送状態通知1996年1月にRFC1891を追跡します[14ページ]。
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.
[9](セクション5.3.6)に関する例に倣っていて、このドキュメントは以下の「別名」と「メーリングリスト」の違いを定義します: 「別名」に関連しているアドレスにメッセージを転送するとき、封筒返送先(例えば、SMTP MAIL FROM)は元の状態のままになります。 しかしながら、「メーリングリスト」に関連しているアドレスにメッセージを転送するとき、封筒返送先はメーリングリストの管理者のものに変わります。 これで、DSNsとリストメンバーに配送から生じる他の不着損害レポートをオリジナルのメッセージの送付者よりむしろリスト管理者に送ります。
The DSN processing for aliases and mailing lists is as follows:
別名とメーリングリストのためのDSN処理は以下の通りです:
6.2.7.1 mailing lists
6.2.7.1 メーリングリスト
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.
リスト服従アドレス(すなわち、入って来るメールのためにリストのメールボックスに置くか、またはリスト加入者にメッセージを再配付する工程で受け入れる)にメッセージを送るとき、オリジナルのメッセージのための最終的な配送であるとこれを考えます。 NOTIFYパラメタであるなら、アドレスがSUCCESSキーワード、「渡された」DSN MUSTを含んだというリスト提案には、オリジナルのメッセージの送付者に返してください。
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.)
以下に注意してください。 いくつかのメーリングリストがメッセージ差出を拒絶できます、メッセージの内容、送付者のアドレス、またはある他の評価基準に基づいて。 そのようなメーリングリストとそのMTAとのインタフェースは明確ではありませんが、DSNsがMTA(うまくいっている配送をリストに報告する)とリストの両方によって発行されないのは、重要です。(「失敗」DSNを使用することでメッセージ拒絶を報告する。)
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.
しかしながら、「渡された」DSNがMTAによって発行されたとしても、メッセージ提案を拒絶するメーリングリストは、メッセージがDSNの代わりに普通のメッセージを使用することで拒絶されたことを送付者に通知するかもしれません。
Whenever a message is redistributed to an mailing list,
メッセージをメーリングリストに再配付するときはいつも
(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.
(a) 封筒返送先は、リスト維持装置を示すために書き直されます。 このアドレスはDSNsを認識して、自動的に彼らを処理する過程のものであるかもしれませんが、それはリストに責任がある人間に認識されていないメッセージを転送しなければなりません。
(b) The ENVID, NOTIFY, RET, and ORCPT parameters which accompany the
redistributed message MUST NOT be derived from those of the original
message.
(b) オリジナルのメッセージのものから再配付されたメッセージに伴うENVID、NOTIFY、RET、およびORCPTパラメタを得てはいけません。
(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
(c) NOTIFYとRETパラメタは地元の郵便局長かリスト管理者によって指定されるかもしれません。 ORCPTであるなら、再分配の間、リスト加入者にパラメタを提供して、彼らはSHOULDです。
Moore Standards Track [Page 15] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
ムーアStandardsはSMTP配送状態通知1996年1月にRFC1891を追跡します[15ページ]。
contain the addresses of the list subscribers in the format used by
the mailing list.
メーリングリストによって使用される形式にリスト加入者のアドレスを含んでください。
6.2.7.2 single-recipient aliases
6.2.7.2 独身の受取人別名
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.
メッセージが「別名」のために到着するとき、通常の状況下で、ただ一つのフォーワーディング・アドレス、DSN SHOULD NOTはどれに発行されましたか? いずれもENVID、NOTIFY、RET、またはORCPTパラメタSHOULD、メッセージで、それをフォーワーディング・アドレスに再配付するのに従って、伝播されてください。
6.2.7.3 multiple-recipient aliases
6.2.7.3 複数の受取人別名
An "alias" with multiple recipient addresses may be handled in any of the following ways:
複数の受取人アドレスがある「別名」は以下の方法のどれかに扱われるかもしれません:
(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.)
(a) フォーワーディング・アドレスのどれかにメッセージをリレーするとき、いずれもENVID、NOTIFY、RET、またはORCPTパラメタが伝播されません。 別名のためのNOTIFYパラメタがSUCCESSキーワードを含んだなら、MTAは「リレーされた」DSNを発行します。 (事実上、まるでそれがDSNsを支持しない環境にリレーされているかのようにMTAはメッセージを扱います。)
(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.)
(b) どんなENVID、NOTIFY、RET、またはORCPTパラメタ(メッセージがあるなら、同等な要求はgatewayedされた)がフォーワーディング・アドレスのEXACTLY1に伝播されます。 DSNは全く発行されません。 (エイリアシングが地方のメールボックスに加えた「休暇」自動応答機プログラムにメッセージを転送するのに使用されるとき、これは適切です。)
(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.
(c) いずれもENVID、RET、またはORCPTパラメタがその別名に関連しているすべてのフォーワーディング・アドレスに伝播されます。 NOTIFYパラメタは伝播されて、それを除いて、推進がそれを記述するということです。どんなSUCCESSキーワードも取り除かれます。 別名のための元のNOTIFYパラメタがSUCCESSキーワードを含んだなら、「広げられた」DSNは別名のために発行されます。 別名のためのNOTIFYパラメタがSUCCESSキーワードを含まなかったなら、DSNは全く別名のために発行されません。
6.2.7.4 confidential forwarding addresses
6.2.7.4 秘密のフォーワーディング・アドレス
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.
受取人のフォーワーディング・アドレスの秘密性を維持するのが必要であるなら、推進はまるでそれがメーリングリストであるかのように扱われるかもしれません。 DSNは「配送」のときに送付者によって指定された受取人アドレスに発行されていて、適切になるでしょう。 メッセージを転送するとき、それには、新しい封筒返送先があるでしょう。 転送されたメッセージの配信障害から生じるどんなDSNsもメッセージの元の送り主に返されないで、またその結果、受取人のフォーワーディング・アドレスを露出しないでしょう。
Moore Standards Track [Page 16] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
ムーアStandardsはSMTP配送状態通知1996年1月にRFC1891を追跡します[16ページ]。
6.2.8 DSNs describing delivery to multiple recipients
6.2.8 配送について複数の受取人に説明するDSNs
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.
独身のDSNはそのメッセージの複数の受取人に伝言をもたらす試みについて説明するかもしれません。 DSNが上の規則に従った他のもののために発行されるのではなく、SMTP取引における何人かの受取人のために発行されるなら、DSN SHOULD NOTはDSNsが別の方法で発行されていない受取人への情報を含んでいます。
6.3 Handling of messages from other sources
6.3 他のソースからのメッセージの取り扱い
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.
「地方」のユーザ(それが意味することなら何でも)から発したメッセージに関しては、送付者のメール作曲家(ユーザエージェント)とMTAの間で同意されたどんなプロトコルでもDSNsが発生するべきである仕様をMTAに伝えることができます。 そして、地方のMTAはメッセージをリレーするか、または適切な配送状態通知を発行できます。 しかしながら、そのような要求がメッセージ(例えば、メッセージヘッダーの)自体の中で伝えられるなら、それがSMTPを通して伝えられる前にメッセージから要求を取り除かなければなりません。
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.
非SMTPソースからgatewayedされて、SMTPによってさらにリレーされたメッセージに関しては、ここで説明されたSMTP拡張子を使用して、ゲートウェイSHOULDは、ソースメール環境によって予想された配送報告状態を提供するのを試みます。 適切であるなら、どんなDSNsもソース環境にSHOULDを返しました。その環境で予想されて、形式に翻訳されてください。
6.4 Implementation limits
6.4 実現限界
A conforming MTA MUST accept ESMTP parameters of at least the following sizes:
従うMTA MUSTは少なくとも以下のサイズのESMTPパラメタを受け入れます:
(a) ENVID parameter: 100 characters.
(a) ENVIDパラメタ: 100のキャラクタ。
(b) NOTIFY parameter: 28 characters.
(b) NOTIFYパラメタ: 28のキャラクタ。
(c) ORCPT parameter: 500 characters.
(c) ORCPTパラメタ: 500のキャラクタ。
(d) RET parameter: 8 characters.
(d) RETパラメタ: 8つのキャラクタ。
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.
ENVIDとORCPTパラメタのための最大サイズが「外国」の封筒識別子とオリジナルの受取人アドレスの送信に適切であることを意図します。 しかしながら、メッセージ提案プロトコルSHOULD NOTとしてSMTPを使用するユーザエージェントが38のキャラクタより長い間長さにはあるENVIDパラメタを発生させます。
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
MTA MUSTを従わせて、少なくとも1036のキャラクタであるSMTPコマンドラインが長いと受け入れることができてください。512に加えて(RCPTのORCPTとNOTIFYパラメタのための530のキャラクタが命令する。
Moore Standards Track [Page 17] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
ムーアStandardsはSMTP配送状態通知1996年1月にRFC1891を追跡します[17ページ]。
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.
キャラクタが[1])が必要です。 他のSMTP拡張子はMTAによってサポートされます、MTA MUST。そのコマンドと共に使用されるかもしれないESMTPパラメタのそれぞれのSMTPコマンドとどんな組み合わせにも、コマンドラインが十分大きいと受け入れることができてください。
7. Format of delivery notifications
7. 配送通知の形式
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.
配送状態通知の書式は[5]で定義されます。([5]は[8]で定義された枠組みを使用します)。 配送状態通知は以下に概説されているようにオリジナルのメッセージの送付者に返すことです。
7.1 SMTP Envelope to be used with delivery status notifications
7.1 配送状態通知と共に使用されるべきSMTP Envelope
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.
DSN送付者アドレス(SMTPメールコマンドにおける)は必要に応じてセクション5.3.3[9]のヌル逆経路であるに違いありません(「<>」)。 DSN受取人アドレス(RCPTコマンドにおける)はDSNが発行されているメッセージに伴ったメールコマンドからコピーされます。 SMTPを通してDSNを伝えるとき、RETパラメタを使用してはいけません。 NOTIFYパラメタは使用されるかもしれませんが、値は決して使用されてはいけません。ENVIDパラメタ(新たに発生した封筒イドがある)、そして/または、ORCPTパラメタは使用されるかもしれません。
7.2 Contents of the DSN
7.2 DSNのコンテンツ
A DSN is transmitted as a MIME message with a top-level content-type of multipart/report (as defined in [5]).
DSNはMIMEメッセージとしてトップレベルの満足しているタイプの複合/レポートで伝えられます。([5])で定義されるように。
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".
満足しているタイプがメールシステムによって作られた数種類のレポートのどれかに使用されるかもしれないという複合/レポート。 複合/レポートがDSNを運ぶのに使用されるとき、複合/レポートに関するレポート型引数の満足しているタイプは「配送状態」です。
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.
[8]で説明されるように、満足しているタイプがレポートの人間の読み込み可能な説明であるという複合/レポートの最初の成分です。 DSNに関して、複合/レポートの2番目の成分は満足しているタイプ配送メッセージ/状態のものです。([5])では、定義されます。 複合/レポートの3番目の成分はオリジナルのメッセージかそれの何らかの部分から成ります。 RETパラメタの値がFULL、満がSHOULDを通信させるということであるときには、配信障害の通知を伝えるあらゆるDSNのために返してください。 (しかしながら、メッセージの長さが何らかの実現に指定された長さより大きいなら、RETパラメタがFULLを指定したとしても、MTA MAYはヘッダーだけを返します。) DSNが配信障害の通知を全く含んでいないなら、MTA SHOULDはヘッダーだけを返します。
The third component must have an appropriate content-type label. Issues concerning selection of the content-type are discussed in [8].
3番目のコンポーネントには、適切な満足しているタイプラベルがなければなりません。 [8]で満足しているタイプの選択に関する問題について議論します。
Moore Standards Track [Page 18] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
ムーアStandardsはSMTP配送状態通知1996年1月にRFC1891を追跡します[18ページ]。
7.3 Message/delivery-status fields
7.3 配送メッセージ/状態分野
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.
配送メッセージ/状態の満足しているタイプはそれらのコンテンツのための一般仕様で多くの分野を定義します。 メッセージに対応して発生するどんなDSNsのための以下の要件も、従うSMTPサーバーによるSMTPプロトコルで受信して、配送メッセージ/状態タイプのための[5]で定義された要件に加えています。
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:
SMTPプロトコルで受け取られたメッセージのためにDSNを発生させるとき、従うMTAは配送メッセージ/状態身体の部分の以下の分野を発生させるでしょう:
(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.
(a) ENVIDパラメタがメールコマンドのときに存在していたなら、Original Envelope ID野原を供給しなければなりません、そして、ENVIDパラメタに関連している値はその分野に現れなければなりません。 ENVIDパラメタのないSMTPを通してメッセージを受け取ったなら、Original Envelope ID野原を供給してはいけません。
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.
ENVIDパラメタがxtextとしてコード化されますが、Original Envelope IDヘッダーはxtextとしてコード化されないので、Original Envelope ID分野にENVID値をコピーするとき、MTAはxtextコード化を解読しなければなりません。
(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.
(b) Reporting-MTA野原を供給しなければなりません。 Reporting MTAが完全に適切なインターネットドメイン名を決定できるなら、タイプのMTA名である部分体は"dns"であるに違いありません、そして、分野はReporting MTAの完全に適切なドメイン名を含まなければなりません。 Reporting MTAの完全に適切なインターネットドメイン名が知られていないなら(例えば直接インターネットに関連づけられないSMTPサーバーのために)、Reporting-MTA分野はMTAを特定するどんなストリングも含むかもしれなくて、この場合、しかしながら、MTA名前タイプ部分体は"dns"であるはずがありません。 「xローカルのホスト名」のMTA名前タイプ部分体価値は示されます。
(c) Other per-message fields as defined in [5] MAY be supplied as
appropriate.
(c) 適宜[5]で定義される他の1メッセージあたりの野原を供給するかもしれません。
(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.
(d) ORCPTパラメタをこの受取人に提供したなら、Original-受取人野原を供給しなければなりません、値がORCPTパラメタから抜粋されている状態で。 ORCPTパラメタを全くこの受取人に提供しなかったなら、Original-受取人野原は現れてはいけません。
(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".
(e) Final-受取人野原を供給しなければなりません。 それはメッセージ封筒からの受取人アドレスを含まなければなりません。 SMTPを通してメッセージを受け取ったなら、アドレスタイプは"rfc822"でしょう。
(f) The Action field MUST be supplied.
(f) Action野原を供給しなければなりません。
Moore Standards Track [Page 19] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
ムーアStandardsはSMTP配送状態通知1996年1月にRFC1891を追跡します[19ページ]。
(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.
(g) [10]からステータスコードを使用して、Status野原を供給しなければなりません。 そこである、適当にa配信障害、4.0について説明するどんな特定のコードも.0(一時障害)ではありません5.0に、.0(永久的な失敗)を使用しなければなりません。
(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".
(h) SMTPを通して1人以上の受取人に伝言を伝える試みから生じるDSNsにおいて、それらの受取人各人にRemote-MTA野原を提供しなければなりません。 それらのRemote- MTA分野のmta名前タイプ部分体は"dns"でしょう。
(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.
(i) SMTPを通して1人以上の受取人に伝言を伝える試みから生じるDSNsにおいて、Diagnostic-コードをそれらの受取人各人に提供しなければなりません。 診断タイプ部分体は"smtp"でしょう。 "smtp"診断コードの記述に関してこのドキュメントのセクション9.2(a)を見てください。
(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.
(j) SMTPを通して1人以上の受取人に伝言を伝える試みから生じるDSNsにおいてSMTPのリモート受取人拡大野原を各受取人に提供するかもしれません。(その受取人は、リモートSMTPサーバーに寄贈されたそのrecpientのアドレスを含みます)。
(k) Other per-recipient fields defined in [5] MAY appear, as
appropriate.
(k) [5]で定義された他の1受取人あたりの野原は適宜現れるかもしれません。
8. Acknowledgments
8. 承認
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.
作者は彼らのこのドキュメントの改善提案についてアナスタージオKotsikonas、ジョン・ガーディナー・マイアーズのエリック・オールマン、ハラルドAlvestrand、ジム・コンクリン、ブライアンCostales、ピーター・カウエン、デーヴ・クロッカー、ロジャーFajman、ネッド・フリード、マルコKaittola、スティーブKille、ジョンKlensin、ジュリアン・アニアンズ、ヤコブ・パルメ、マーシャル・ローズ、グレッグ・ボードルイ、およびクラウスWeideに感謝したがっています。
Moore Standards Track [Page 20] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
ムーアStandardsはSMTP配送状態通知1996年1月にRFC1891を追跡します[20ページ]。
9. Appendix - Type-Name Definitions
9. 付録--型名定義
The following type names are defined for use in DSN fields generated by conforming SMTP-based MTAs:
以下の型名はSMTPベースのMTAsを従わせることによって発生するDSN分野での使用のために定義されます:
9.1 "rfc822" address-type
9.1 "rfc822"アドレスタイプ
The "rfc822" address-type is to be used when reporting Internet electronic mail address in the Original-Recipient and Final-Recipient DSN fields.
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
(a) address-type name: rfc822
(b) syntax for mailbox addresses
(b) syntax for mailbox addresses
RFC822 mailbox addresses are generally expected to be of the form
RFC822 mailbox addresses are generally expected to be of the form
[route] addr-spec
[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.
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.
(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.
RFC822 addresses consist entirely of graphic characters from the US- ASCII repertoire, so no translation is necessary.
9.2 "smtp" diagnostic-type
9.2 "smtp" diagnostic-type
The "smtp" diagnostic-type is to be used when reporting SMTP reply- codes in Diagnostic-Code DSN fields.
The "smtp" diagnostic-type is to be used when reporting SMTP reply- codes in Diagnostic-Code DSN fields.
(a) diagnostic-type name: SMTP
(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.
(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
An SMTP diagnostic-code is of the form
*( 3*DIGIT "-" *text ) 3*DIGIT SPACE *text
*( 3*DIGIT "-" *text ) 3*DIGIT SPACE *text
Moore Standards Track [Page 21] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 21] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
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:
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
550-mailbox unavailable 550 user has moved with no forwarding address
could appear as follows in a Diagnostic-Code DSN field:
could appear as follows in a Diagnostic-Code DSN field:
Diagnostic-Code: smtp ; 550-mailbox unavailable
550 user has moved with no forwarding address
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.
(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.
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
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.
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
(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.
(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:
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
domain = real-domain / domain-literal
real-domain = sub-domain *("." sub-domain)
real-domain = sub-domain *("." sub-domain)
sub-domain = atom
sub-domain = atom
domain-literal = "[" 1*3DIGIT 3("." 1*3DIGIT) "]"
domain-literal = "[" 1*3DIGIT 3("." 1*3DIGIT) "]"
where "atom" and "DIGIT" are defined in [2].
where "atom" and "DIGIT" are defined in [2].
Moore Standards Track [Page 22] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 22] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
(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.
(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.
MTA names of type "dns" consist entirely of graphic US-ASCII characters, so no translation is needed.
10. Appendix - Example
10. Appendix - Example
This example traces the flow of a single message addressed to multiple recipients. The message is sent by Alice@Pure-Heart.ORG to Bob@Big-Bucks.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.
This example traces the flow of a single message addressed to multiple recipients. The message is sent by Alice@Pure-Heart.ORG to Bob@Big-Bucks.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.
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
10.1 Submission
Alice's user agent sends the message to the SMTP server at Pure- Heart.ORG. Note that while this example uses SMTP as a mail submission protocol, other protocols could also be used.
Alice's user agent sends the message to the SMTP server at Pure- Heart.ORG. Note that while this example uses SMTP as a mail submission protocol, other protocols could also be used.
<<< 220 Pure-Heart.ORG SMTP server here
>>> EHLO Pure-Heart.ORG
<<< 250-Pure-Heart.ORG
<<< 250-DSN
<<< 250-EXPN
<<< 250 SIZE
>>> MAIL FROM:<Alice@Pure-Heart.ORG> RET=HDRS ENVID=QQ314159
<<< 250 <Alice@Pure-Heart.ORG> sender ok
>>> RCPT TO:<Bob@Big-Bucks.COM> NOTIFY=SUCCESS \
ORCPT=rfc822;Bob@Big-Bucks.COM
<<< 250 <Bob@Big-Bucks.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
<<< 220 Pure-Heart.ORG SMTP server here >>> EHLO Pure-Heart.ORG <<< 250-Pure-Heart.ORG <<< 250-DSN <<< 250-EXPN <<< 250 SIZE >>> MAIL FROM:<Alice@Pure-Heart.ORG> RET=HDRS ENVID=QQ314159 <<< 250 <Alice@Pure-Heart.ORG> sender ok >>> RCPT TO:<Bob@Big-Bucks.COM> NOTIFY=SUCCESS \ ORCPT=rfc822;Bob@Big-Bucks.COM <<< 250 <Bob@Big-Bucks.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
Moore Standards Track [Page 23] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 23] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
>>> 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
>>> 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 Big-Bucks.COM
10.2 Relay to Big-Bucks.COM
The SMTP at Pure-Heart.ORG then relays the message to Big-Bucks.COM. (For the purpose of this example, mail.Big-Bucks.COM is the primary mail exchanger for Big-Bucks.COM).
The SMTP at Pure-Heart.ORG then relays the message to Big-Bucks.COM. (For the purpose of this example, mail.Big-Bucks.COM is the primary mail exchanger for Big-Bucks.COM).
<<< 220 mail.Big-Bucks.COM says hello
>>> EHLO Pure-Heart.ORG
<<< 250-mail.Big-Bucks.COM
<<< 250 DSN
>>> MAIL FROM:<Alice@Pure-Heart.ORG> RET=HDRS ENVID=QQ314159
<<< 250 sender okay
>>> RCPT TO:<Bob@Big-Bucks.COM> NOTIFY=SUCCESS \
ORCPT=rfc822;Bob@Big-Bucks.COM
<<< 250 recipient okay
>>> DATA
<<< 354 send message
>>> (message goes here)
>>> .
<<< 250 message received
>>> QUIT
<<< 221 bcnu
<<< 220 mail.Big-Bucks.COM says hello >>> EHLO Pure-Heart.ORG <<< 250-mail.Big-Bucks.COM <<< 250 DSN >>> MAIL FROM:<Alice@Pure-Heart.ORG> RET=HDRS ENVID=QQ314159 <<< 250 sender okay >>> RCPT TO:<Bob@Big-Bucks.COM> NOTIFY=SUCCESS \ ORCPT=rfc822;Bob@Big-Bucks.COM <<< 250 recipient okay >>> DATA <<< 354 send message >>> (message goes here) >>> . <<< 250 message received >>> QUIT <<< 221 bcnu
10.3 Relay to Ivory.EDU
10.3 Relay to Ivory.EDU
The SMTP at Pure-Heart.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.
The SMTP at Pure-Heart.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 Pure-Heart.ORG <<< 250-Ivory.EDU
<<< 220 Ivory.EDU gateway to FooMail(tm) here >>> EHLO Pure-Heart.ORG <<< 250-Ivory.EDU
Moore Standards Track [Page 24] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 24] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
<<< 250 DSN
>>> MAIL FROM:<Alice@Pure-Heart.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
<<< 250 DSN >>> MAIL FROM:<Alice@Pure-Heart.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 Pure-Heart.ORG) must generate a DSN.
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 Pure-Heart.ORG) must generate a DSN.
10.4 Relay to Bombs.AF.MIL
10.4 Relay to Bombs.AF.MIL
The SMTP at Pure-Heart.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 Pure- Heart.ORG chooses to send the message for that recipient in a separate transaction with a reverse-path of <>.
The SMTP at Pure-Heart.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 Pure- Heart.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 Pure-Heart.ORG <<< 502 command not implemented >>> RSET <<< 250 reset >>> HELO Pure-Heart.ORG <<< 250 Bombs.AF.MIL >>> MAIL FROM:<Alice@Pure-Heart.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
<<< 220-Bombs.AF.MIL reporting for duty. <<< 220 Electronic mail is to be used for official business only. >>> EHLO Pure-Heart.ORG <<< 502 command not implemented >>> RSET <<< 250 reset >>> HELO Pure-Heart.ORG <<< 250 Bombs.AF.MIL >>> MAIL FROM:<Alice@Pure-Heart.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
Moore Standards Track [Page 25] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 25] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
>>> 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
>>> 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
10.5 Forward from George@Tax-ME.GOV to Sam@Boondoggle.GOV
The SMTP at Pure-Heart.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 Pure-Heart.ORG support the SMTP DSN extension. Note that RET, ENVID, and ORCPT all retain their original values.
The SMTP at Pure-Heart.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 Pure-Heart.ORG support the SMTP DSN extension. Note that RET, ENVID, and ORCPT all retain their original values.
<<< 220 BoonDoggle.GOV says hello
>>> EHLO Pure-Heart.ORG
<<< 250-mail.Big-Bucks.COM
<<< 250 DSN
>>> MAIL FROM:<Alice@Pure-Heart.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
<<< 220 BoonDoggle.GOV says hello >>> EHLO Pure-Heart.ORG <<< 250-mail.Big-Bucks.COM <<< 250 DSN >>> MAIL FROM:<Alice@Pure-Heart.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
Moore Standards Track [Page 26] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 26] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
10.6 "Delivered" DSN for Bob@Big-Bucks.COM
10.6 "Delivered" DSN for Bob@Big-Bucks.COM
MTA mail.Big-Bucks.COM successfully delivers the message to Bob@Big- Bucks.COM. Because the sender specified NOTIFY=SUCCESS, mail.Big- Bucks.COM issues the following DSN, and sends it to Alice@Pure- Heart.ORG.
MTA mail.Big-Bucks.COM successfully delivers the message to Bob@Big- Bucks.COM. Because the sender specified NOTIFY=SUCCESS, mail.Big- Bucks.COM issues the following DSN, and sends it to Alice@Pure- Heart.ORG.
To: Alice@Pure-Heart.ORG
From: postmaster@mail.Big-Bucks.COM
Subject: Delivery Notification (success) for Bob@Big-Bucks.COM
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary=abcde
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alice@Pure-Heart.ORG From: postmaster@mail.Big-Bucks.COM Subject: Delivery Notification (success) for Bob@Big-Bucks.COM Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary=abcde MIME-Version: 1.0
--abcde Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--abcde Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Your message (id QQ314159) was successfully delivered to Bob@Big-Bucks.COM.
Your message (id QQ314159) was successfully delivered to Bob@Big-Bucks.COM.
--abcde Content-type: message/delivery-status
--abcde Content-type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: dns; mail.Big-Bucks.COM Original-Envelope-ID: QQ314159
Reporting-MTA: dns; mail.Big-Bucks.COM Original-Envelope-ID: QQ314159
Original-Recipient: rfc822;Bob@Big-Bucks.COM Final-Recipient: rfc822;Bob@Big-Bucks.COM Action: delivered Status: 2.0.0
Original-Recipient: rfc822;Bob@Big-Bucks.COM Final-Recipient: rfc822;Bob@Big-Bucks.COM Action: delivered Status: 2.0.0
--abcde Content-type: message/rfc822
--abcde Content-type: message/rfc822
(headers of returned message go here)
(headers of returned message go here)
--abcde--
--abcde--
Moore Standards Track [Page 27] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 27] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
10.7 Failed DSN for Carol@Ivory.EDU
10.7 Failed DSN for Carol@Ivory.EDU
Because delivery to Carol failed and the sender specified NOTIFY=FAILURE for Carol@Ivory.EDU, MTA Pure-Heart.ORG (the SMTP client to which the failure was reported via SMTP) issues the following DSN.
Because delivery to Carol failed and the sender specified NOTIFY=FAILURE for Carol@Ivory.EDU, MTA Pure-Heart.ORG (the SMTP client to which the failure was reported via SMTP) issues the following DSN.
To: Alice@Pure-Heart.ORG
From: postmaster@Pure-Heart.ORG
Subject: Delivery Notification (failure) for Carol@Ivory.EDU
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary=bcdef
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alice@Pure-Heart.ORG From: postmaster@Pure-Heart.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
--bcdef Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Your message (id QQ314159) could not be delivered to Carol@Ivory.EDU.
Your message (id QQ314159) could not be delivered to Carol@Ivory.EDU.
A transcript of the session follows:
A transcript of the session follows:
(while talking to Ivory.EDU) >>> RCPT TO:<Carol@Ivory.EDU> NOTIFY=FAILURE <<< 550 error - no such recipient
(while talking to Ivory.EDU) >>> RCPT TO:<Carol@Ivory.EDU> NOTIFY=FAILURE <<< 550 error - no such recipient
--bcdef Content-type: message/delivery-status
--bcdef Content-type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: dns; Pure-Heart.ORG Original-Envelope-ID: QQ314159
Reporting-MTA: dns; Pure-Heart.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
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
--bcdef Content-type: message/rfc822
(headers of returned message go here)
(headers of returned message go here)
--bcdef--
--bcdef--
Moore Standards Track [Page 28] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 28] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
10.8 Relayed DSN For Dana@Ivory.EDU
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:
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@Pure-Heart.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
To: Alice@Pure-Heart.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
--cdefg Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Your message (addressed to Dana@Ivory.EDU) was successfully relayed to:
Your message (addressed to Dana@Ivory.EDU) was successfully relayed to:
ymail!Dana
ymail!Dana
by the FooMail gateway at Ivory.EDU.
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.
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
--cdefg Content-type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: dns; Ivory.EDU Original-Envelope-ID: QQ314159
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
Original-Recipient: rfc822;Dana@Ivory.EDU Final-Recipient: rfc822;Dana@Ivory.EDU Action: relayed Status: 2.0.0
--cdefg Content-type: message/rfc822
--cdefg Content-type: message/rfc822
(headers of returned message go here)
(headers of returned message go here)
--cdefg--
--cdefg--
Moore Standards Track [Page 29] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 29] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
10.9 Failure notification for Sam@Boondoggle.GOV
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:
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@BigHeart.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
To: Alice@BigHeart.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:
--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
write error to mailbox, disk quota exceeded
--defgh Content-type: message/delivery-status
--defgh Content-type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: Boondoggle.GOV Original-Envelope-ID: QQ314159
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)
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
--defgh Content-type: message/rfc822
(headers of returned message go here)
(headers of returned message go here)
--defgh--
--defgh--
Moore Standards Track [Page 30] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
Moore Standards Track [Page 30] RFC 1891 SMTP Delivery Status Notifications January 1996
11. References
11. References
[1] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1982.
[1] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821, USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1982.
[2] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, UDEL, August 1982.
[2] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, UDEL, August 1982.
[3] Westine, A., and J. Postel, "Problems with the Maintenance of
Large Mailing Lists.", RFC 1211, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, March 1991.
[3] Westine, A., and J. Postel, "Problems with the Maintenance of Large Mailing Lists.", RFC 1211, USC/Information Sciences Institute, March 1991.
[4] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D. Crocker,
"SMTP Service Extensions", RFC 1651, MCI, Innosoft, Dover Beach
Consulting, Inc., Network Management Associates, Inc., Silicon
Graphics, Inc., July 1994.
[4] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D. Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", RFC 1651, MCI, Innosoft, Dover Beach Consulting, Inc., Network Management Associates, Inc., Silicon Graphics, Inc., July 1994.
[5] Moore, K., and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for
Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 1894, University of Tennessee,
Octel Network Services, January 1996.
[5] Moore, K., and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 1894, University of Tennessee, Octel Network Services, January 1996.
[6] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4", RFC
1730, University of Washington, 20 December 1994.
[6] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4", RFC 1730, University of Washington, 20 December 1994.
[7] Myers, J., and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3", RFC
1725, Carnegie Mellon, Dover Beach Consulting, November 1994.
[7] Myers, J., and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3", RFC 1725, Carnegie Mellon, Dover Beach Consulting, November 1994.
[8] Vaudreuil, G., "The Multipart/Report Content Type for the
Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages", RFC 1892, Octel
Network Services, January 1996.
[8] Vaudreuil, G., "The Multipart/Report Content Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages", RFC 1892, Octel Network Services, January 1996.
[9] Braden, R., Editor, "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application
and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, IETF, October 1989.
[9] Braden, R., Editor, "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, IETF, October 1989.
[10] Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", RFC 1893,
Octel Network Services, January 1996.
[10] Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", RFC 1893, Octel Network Services, January 1996.
12. Author's Address
12. Author's Address
Keith Moore University of Tennessee 107 Ayres Hall Knoxville, TN 37996-1301 USA
Keith Moore University of Tennessee 107 Ayres Hall Knoxville, TN 37996-1301 USA
EMail: moore@cs.utk.edu
EMail: moore@cs.utk.edu
Moore Standards Track [Page 31]
Moore Standards Track [Page 31]
一覧
スポンサーリンク
