view Side-By-Side changes

INTERNET-DRAFT                                John C. Klensin, Editor
Expires in six months                                             MCI
                                                         May 27,                         Dawn P. Mann, Co-Editor
                                                        July 30, 1997
                                                        

                  Simple Mail Transfer Protocol 

                 draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-05.txt 

                 draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-06.txt

                     Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft.  Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months.  Internet-Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
other documents at any time.  It is not appropriate to use
Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a
"working draft" or "work in progress".

To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
Directories on ds.internic.net (US East Coast), nic.nordu.net
(Europe), ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast), or munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim).

If consensus is reached on this document, it will be forwarded to the
IESG with the recommendation that it be processed onto the Standards
track. 

[[Sections marked with doubled brackets (e.g., "<<") are explicit
placeholders or known major loose ends.  The marking ## is a note in
the draft to recheck a section number and should be ignored.]]

[[As discussed in the WG, most of the syntax, syntax and none of the
examples, examples have not
been changed from 821 -- those changes are a last-step last- step item, after
the ABNF document completely stabilizes and differences with 822bis
have been resolved.  Similarly  Similarly, the numbers of appendices will be
rationalized (and Appendix X removed) before the document is
submitted to the IESG.  Please check appendix X.2 for additional
problems of which the editor is already painfully aware.]] aware before
complaining about things that are missing.]]


                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
   0.  ABSTRACT

   1.  INTRODUCTION

   2.  THE SMTP MODEL

      2.1 Basic structure
      2.2 The extension model
      2.3 Other terminology
      2.4 Syntax Principles


   3.  THE SMTP PROCEDURES: AN OVERVIEW
      
      3.1  Session initiation
      3.2  Client initiation
      3.3  Mail transactions
      3.4  Forwarding for Address Correction or Updating
      3.5  Commands for Debugging Addresses
      3.6  Domains 
      3.7  Relaying
      3.8  Mail Gatewaying
      3.9  Terminating sessions and connections
      3.10  Mailing lists and Aliases


   4.  THE SMTP SPECIFICATIONS

      4.1.  SMTP Commands
      4.1.1.  Command Semantics and Syntax
      4.1.2.  Lower-level Syntax
      4.1.3.  Address literals
      4.1.4.  Order of commands
      4.1.5.  Private-use commands
      4.2.  SMTP Replies
      4.2.1.  Reply Code Severities and Theory
      4.2.2.  Reply Codes by Function Group
      4.2.3.  Reply Codes in Numeric Order 
      4.2.4.  Reply code 502
      4.2.5  Reply codes after DATA and the subsequent CRLF.CRLF.
      4.3.  Sequencing of Commands and Replies
      4.4   Trace information
      4.5.  Details
      4.5.1.  Minimum Implementation
      4.5.2.  Transparency
      4.5.3.  Sizes and Timeouts
      4.5.4   SMTP Queuing Strategies

   5. Address resolution and mail handling

   6. Problem detection and handling
      6.1 Reliable delivery and replies by email
      6.2 Loop detection
      6.3 Compensating for irregularities

   7. Security Considerations
      7.1 Mail security and spoofing
      7.2 "Blind" copies
      7.3 VRFY, EXPN, and security
      7.4 Information disclosure
      7.5 Scope of operation of SMTP servers

   8. IANA Considerations

   9. References

   10. Editor's addresses

   11. Acknowledgements Acknowledgments

   APPENDIX A:  TCP
   APPENDIX B:  Generating SMTP commands from RFC 822 headers
   APPENDIX C:  Source routes
   APPENDIX F:  Scenarios
   APPENDIX G:  Other gateway issues.
   APPENDIX I:  Deprecated features of RFC 821
   APPENDIX X:  Change summary and Loose ends (temporary)





0.  Abstract

This document is a self-contained specification of the basic protocol
for the Internet electronic mail transport, consolidating and
updating 

 * the original SMTP specification of RFC 821 [RFC-821],
 * Domain name system requirements and implications for mail
   transport from RFC 1035 [RFC-DNS] and RFC 974 [RFC974],
 * the clarifications and applicability statements in 
     RFC 1123 [RFC-1123], and
 * material drawn from the SMTP Extension mechanisms [SMTPEXT].

It is intended to replace replaces RFC 821, RFC 974, and the mail transport materials of RFC
1123.  However, RFC 821 specifies some features that are not in
significant use in the Internet of the mid-1990s and, in
appendices, and (in appendices)
some additional transport models.  Those sections are omitted in this document here in
the interest of clarity and brevity; readers needing them should
refer to RFC 821. 

It also includes some additional material from RFC 1123 that appeared
to need required
amplification.  These have  This material has been identified in multiple ways,
mostly by tracking flaming on the header-people list [HEADER-PEOPLE]
and problems of unusual readings or interpretations that have turned
up as the SMTP extensions have been deployed.  It is important to
note that everything here is in response to some identified confusion
or bad behavior, not just paranoia.  Where this
specification moves beyond consolidation and actually differs from
earlier documents, it supersedes them technically as well as
textually.

Although SMTP was designed as a mail transport and delivery protocol,
this specification also contains information that is important to its
use as a "mail posting" 'mail posting' protocol, as recommended for POP [RFC-POP2,
RFC-POP3] and IMAP [RFC-IMAP4].

Section ##2.3 provides definitions of terms specific to this
document. Except when the historical terminology is necessary for
clarity, this document uses the current "client" 'client' and "server" 'server'
terminology to identify the sending and receiving SMTP processes,
respectively. 

A companion document discusses message bodies and formats RFC 822,
MIME, and their relationship - [MSGFMT].

1.  INTRODUCTION

The objective of the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) is to
transfer mail reliably and efficiently.

SMTP is independent of the particular transmission subsystem and
requires only a reliable ordered data stream channel.  While this
document specifically discusses transport over TCP, other transports
are possible.  Appendices to RFC 821 describe some of them.  Section
##2.3 provides definitions of terms specific to this document.  

An important feature of SMTP is its capability to transport mail
across transport service environments, usually referred to as "mail
gatewaying" (see section 3.8).  A transport service environment might
consist of the mutually-TCP-accessible hosts on the public internet, Internet,
a firewall-isolated private TCP/IP LAN, or a LAN or WAN environment
utilizing an entirely different transport-level protocol.  It is
important to realize that transport systems "transport systems" are not one-to-one with
usual definitions of "networks".  A process can communicate directly
with another process, and transport mail using this protocol, through
any mutually known transport layer.  Conversely, mail can be relayed
(actually gatewayed) between hosts on different transport systems by
a host on both transport systems.  The Mail eXchanger mechanisms of
the domain name system [RFC-DNS, and section 5 ##5 of this document]
usually permit relaying and gatewaying to occur invisibly to the user.


2.  THE SMTP MODEL

2.1 Basic structure

The SMTP design is based on the following model of communication: as
the result of a user mail request (or transfer from a mail user agent
(see section ##2.3)), the SMTP client establishes a two-way
transmission channel to an SMTP server.  Fully-capable A fully-capable SMTP client SMTPs
determine
determines the host address supporting the server of an appropriate host running an SMTP function server
by resolving the domain name given in the SMTP request to it into either an
intermediate mail exchanger host or a final target host. In other
cases, common with clients associated with implementations of the POP
[RFC-POP2, RFC-POP3] or IMAP [RFC-IMAP4] protocols, or when the
client is inside an isolated transport service enviroment, environment, the SMTP
client may send all of its traffic to a single SMTP server which, in
turn, relays the mail to final (or other intermediate) destinations.
The relay and those destinations in turn are expected to support all of the
queuing, retrying, and alternate address functions discussed in this
specification. 

The SMTP server may be either the ultimate destination or an
intermediate "relay" (i.e., may assume the role of an SMTP client
after receiving the message).  SMTP commands are generated by the
SMTP client and sent to the SMTP server.  SMTP replies are sent from
the SMTP server to the SMTP client in response to the commands. 

Once the transmission channel is established and initial handshaking
completed, the SMTP-client SMTP client normally initiates a mail transaction.
Such a transaction consists of a series of commands to specify the
originator and destination of the mail and transmission of the
message content (including any headers or other structure) itself.
When the same message is sent to multiple recipients recipients, this protocol
encourages the transmission of only one copy of the data for all the 
recipients at the same destination (or intermediate relay) host.  

The server responds to each command with a reply; replies may
indicate that the command was accepted, that additional commands are
expected, or that a temporary or permanent error condition exists.
Commands that specify specifying the sender or recipients may include
server-permitted SMTP service extension requests as discussed in
section ##2.2.  The dialog is purposely lock-step, one-at-a-time one-at-a-time,
although this can be modified by mutually-agreed extension requests
(e.g., [RFC-Pipeline]).

Once a given mail message has been transmitted, the client may either
request that the connection be shut down or may initiate other mail
transactions. 

     -------------------------------------------------------------

   
               +----------+                +----------+
   +------+    |          |                |          |
   | User |<-->|          |      SMTP      |          |
   +------+    |  Sender- |Commands/Replies| Receiver-|
   +------+    |   SMTP   |<-------------->|    SMTP  |    +------+
   | File |<-->|          |    and Mail    |          |<-->| File |
   |System|    |          |                |          |    |System|
   +------+    +----------+                +----------+    +------+
   

                SMTP client                SMTP server

                           Model for SMTP Use

                                Figure 1

     -------------------------------------------------------------

Less commonly, the

In addition, an SMTP protocol and connection may be used by the client may use a connection to request an SMTP server
for ancillary services of the server such as verification of email addresses or exhibiting the contents
retrieval of mailing lists. list subscriber addresses.

As suggested above, this protocol provides mechanisms for the
transmission of mail.  This transmission normally occurs directly
from the sending user's host to the receiving user's host when the
two hosts are connected to the same transport service.  When they are
not connected to the same transport service, transmission occurs via
one or more relay SMTP-servers. SMTP servers.  An intermediate host that will act acts
as either an SMTP relay or as a gateway into some other transmission
environment may also be selected through the use of the domain name
service (DNS) Mail eXchanger mechanism.

To be able to provide the relay capability capability, the server SMTP server is supplied with the
name of the ultimate destination host as well as the destination
mailbox name.  Usually, intermediate hosts are determined via the DNS
MX record, not by explicit "source" routing (see Appendices ##C and
##I).



2.2 The Extension Model

2.2.1 Background

In an effort that started in 1990, approximately a decade after RFC
821 was completed, the protocol was modified with a "service
extensions" model that permits permitting the client and server to agree to
utilize shared functionality that goes beyond the original basic SMTP requirements.
Contemporary SMTP implementations MUST support the basic extension
mechanisms (see below for details), i.e., servers MUST support the
EHLO command even if they do not implement any specific extensions
and clients MUST preferentially utilize EHLO rather than HELO.  However,
(However, for compatibility with older
implementations (which are expected to persist for some years), conforming implementations,
SMTP clients and servers MUST support the original HELO mechanisms as
a
fallback.

Although fallback.)  Unless the different characteristics of HELO must be
identified for interoperability purposes, this document discusses
only EHLO.

SMTP is widely and robustly deployed, some parts of deployed and high-quality implementations have
proven to be very robust., However, the Internet community might wish now
considers some services to extend the SMTP service.  The SMTP
extension mechanism defines a means whereby an extended SMTP client
and server may recognize each other as such and the server can inform be important that were not anticipated
when the client as protocol was first designed.  If support for those services
is to the service extensions that be added, it supports.

It must be emphasized that any done in a way that permits older
implementations to continue working acceptably. 

In an effort that started in 1990, approximately a decade after RFC
821 was completed, the protocol was modified with a "service
extensions" model permitting the client and server to agree to
utilize shared functionality beyond the original SMTP requirements.
The SMTP extension mechanism defines a means whereby an extended SMTP
client and server may recognize each other, and the server can inform
the client as to the service extensions that it supports.

The extension framework consists of:

 (1)   The SMTP command EHLO, superseding the earlier HELO,

 (2)   a registry of SMTP service should
not be considered lightly. extensions, 

 (3)   additional parameters to the SMTP MAIL FROM and RCPT TO
       commands, and

 (4)   optional replacements for verbs defined in this protocol,
       such as for DATA (e.g., see [RFC-BDAT]).

SMTP's strength comes primarily from its simplicity.  Experience with
many protocols has shown that:

     -- protocols with few options tend towards ubiquity, whilst whereas
     -- protocols with many options tend towards obscurity.

This means that each

Each and every extension, regardless of its benefits, must be
carefully scrutinized with respect to its implementation, deployment,
and interoperability costs. In many cases, the cost of extending the
SMTP service will likely outweigh the benefit.

Given this environment, the extension framework consists of:

 (1)   The

Contemporary SMTP command EHLO, superseding implementations MUST support the earlier HELO,

 (2)   a registry of SMTP service extensions, and

 (3)   additional parameters to basic extension
mechanism (see below for details), i.e., servers MUST support the SMTP MAIL FROM
EHLO command even if they do not implement any specific extensions
and RCPT TO
       commands.

 (4)   optional replacements for verbs defined in this protocol,
       such as for DATA (e.g., see [RFC-BDAT]). clients MUST preferentially utilize EHLO rather than HELO.





2.2.2 Definition and Registration of Extensions

The IANA maintains a registry of SMTP service extensions.  Associated
with each such extension is a  A
corresponding EHLO keyword value. value is associated with each extension .
Each service extension registered with the IANA must be defined in an RFC.
Such RFCs must either be on the
aformal standards-track or must define an IESG-approved experimental protocol. protocol
document.  The definition must include:

 (1)   the textual name of the SMTP service extension;

 (2)   the EHLO keyword value associated with the extension;

 (3)   the syntax and possible values of parameters associated with
       the EHLO keyword value; 

 (4)   any additional SMTP verbs associated with the extension
       (additional verbs will usually be, but are not required
       to be, the same as the EHLO keyword value);

 (5)   any new parameters the extension associates with the
       MAIL FROM or RCPT TO verbs;

 (6)   a description of how support for the extension affects the 
       behavior of a server and client SMTP; and,

 (7)   the increment by which the extension is increasing the
       maximum length of the commands MAIL FROM, FROM and/or RCPT TO, or
       both, over
	   that specified in RFC 821.

In addition, any EHLO keyword value that starts starting with an upper or lower
case "X" refers to a local SMTP service extension, which is extension used exclusively
through bilateral agreement, rather than being standardized. agreement.  Keywords beginning with "X" may not be
used in a registered service extension.  Conversely, keyword values
presented in the EHLO response that do not begin with "X" must
correspond to a standard, standards-track, or IESG-approved
experimental SMTP service extension registered with IANA.  A
conforming server must not MUST NOT offer non-"X"-prefixed keyword values that
are not described in a registered extension.

Additional verbs and parameter names are bound by the same rules as
EHLO keywords; specifically, verbs begining beginning with "X" are local
extensions that may not be registered or standardized.  Conversely,
verbs not beginning with "X" must always be registered.


2.3 Terminology

Most of the terminology in this document is common in the Internet at
the time of its writing.  However, the following terms and concepts
are used in special ways here, or represent differences in
terminology between RFC 821 and this document, and should be
understood before reading further.  These definitions are normative,
i.e., they contain specifications to which SMTP implementations are
required to conform.

2.3.1 Mail objects

SMTP relays transports a mail object containing an envelope and a content.

 (1)   The SMTP envelope is straightforward, and is sent as a
       series of SMTP protocol units (described in section ##3): it
       consists of an originator address (to which error reports
       should be directed); a delivery mode (e.g., deliver to
       recipient mailboxes); one or more recipient addresses; and
       optional protocol extension material.

 (2)   The SMTP content is sent in the SMTP DATA protocol unit and
       has two parts: the headers and the body. The headers form a
	   collection of field/value pairs structured as described in [MSGFMT], whilst
	   [MSGFMT]; the body, if structured, is defined according to
	   MIME [3]. [RFC-MIME]. The content is textual in nature, expressed
	   using the US ASCII repertoire (ANSI X3.4-1986). repertoire[1]. Although extensions (such as
	   MIME) may relax this restriction for the content body, the
	   content headers are always encoded using the US ASCII
	   repertoire. The algorithm defined in
       [4] [RFC-INTLHDR] is used to
	   represent header values outside the US ASCII repertoire, whilst while
	   still encoding them using the US ASCII repertoire.

2.3.2. Sender Senders and receivers

In RFC 821, the two hosts participating in an SMTP transaction were
described as the "SMTP-sender" and "SMTP-receiver".  This document
has been changed to reflect current industry terminology and hence
refers to them as the "SMTP client" (or sometimes just "the client")
and "SMTP server" (or just "the server") server"), respectively.  Since a
given host may act both as server and client in a relay situation,
"receiver" and "sender" terminology is still used where needed for
clarity. 

2.3.3. Mail agents

Additional mail system terminology became common after RFC 821 was
published and, where convenient, is used in this specification.  In
particular, SMTP servers and clients provide a mail transport service
and therefore act as Mail Transfer Agents (MTAs).  Mail User Agents
(MUAs or UAs) are normally thought of as the sources and targets of
mail.  At the source, an MUA might collect mail to be transmitted
from a user and hand it off to an MTA; the final ("delivery") MTA
would be thought of as handing the mail off to an MUA (or at least
transferring responsibility to it).  However, while these terms are
used with at least the appearance of great precision in other
environments, the implied boundaries between MUAs and MTAs often do
not accurately match common, and conforming, practices with Internet
mail.  Hence, the reader should be cautious about inferring the
strong relationships and responsibilities that might be implied if
these terms were used elsewhere.

2.3.4 host

For the purposes of this specification, a host is a computer system
attached to the Internet (or, in some cases, to a private TCP/IP
network) and supporting the SMTP protocol.  Hosts are known by names 
(see "domain"); identifying them by numerical address is discouraged.

2.3.5 domain

The name of a host (often referred to as a "fully-qualified domain
name" or "FQDN"), or some entry in the domain name hierarchy, usually
referred to as a "subdomain", that may contain many hosts.  A domain,
or domain name, may also refer to an alias ("CNAME") or may provide (label of a
reference to CNAME RR) or
name the label of Mail eXchanger records to be used to deliver mail.  See
[RFC-DNS] and section ##5.  

Some published material about the Internet (and about Internet mail
in particular) refers to a "host in a domain" as if the host name
were an unqualified name with a domain name appended to it.  This
convention has caused considerable confusion deliver mail.
See [RFC-DNS] and some protocol
violations: the section ##5.  

The domain name, as described in this document and in [RFC-DNS], is
the entire, fully-qualified name, and an apparent host name that is
not in FQDN form is no more than a local alias.  Local aliases MUST
NOT appear in any SMTP transaction.

2.3.6 buffer and state table

The SMTP protocol can be modelled by a simple abstract machine in
which commands are exchanged between client and server.   Some
commands cause the server to accumulate information in a virtual
buffer,


In other commands cause that buffer to be cleared, or the data
in works, if ab.cd.ef is the buffer to be acted upon, causing mail to be transmitted.
Because fully-qualified name of this relationship, a host (or 
label for an MX record), then it is important that commands obviously a "domain".  However,
"cd.ef" may be
correctly sequenced, and only a domain name; it is possible for it to ensure this the server will also have not refer 
to any host.

2.3.6 buffer and state table

SMTP sessions are stateful, with both parties carefully maintaining a
notion
common view of the current state of communications.  Commands alter that
state in a well-defined sequence, or reset the sequence to an earlier
point. state.  In this document, "buffer" refers to document we model this
state by a virtual buffer "buffer" and a "state table" to on the list of commands server which caused
may be used by the server to
achieve its current state.   Operations described as "clearing client to, for example, "clear the buffer" or "resetting
"reset the state table" cause table," causing the information in the buffer to be
discarded and the state to be returned to that which
existed at an earlier time. some previous state

2.3.7 lines

SMTP commands and, unless altered by a service extension, message
data, are transmitted in "lines".  Lines are defined as consisting consist of zero or more data
characters terminated by the ASCII sequence of "CR" followed immediately
by "LF".  Conforming implementations MUST NOT recognize or generate
any other character or character sequence as a line terminator. 

2.3.8 Gateway, relay, originator, and delivery system

This specification makes a distinction among four types of SMTP
systems, based on the role those systems play in transmitting
electronic mail.  An "originating" system (sometimes called an
SMTP-originator) is one that SMTP
originator) introduces mail into the Internet or, more generally,
into a transport service environment.  When the
concept of a mail user agent is useful, the SMTP-originator is the
mail transfer agent to which an originating mail user agent hands off
the message. A "delivery" SMTP system is one
that receives mail from a transport service environment and hands it
to a mail user agent or deposits it in a maildrop which a mail user
agent is expected to subsequently access.  A "relay" SMTP system
(usually referred to just as a "relay") receives mail from an SMTP
client and transmits it, without modification to the message data
other than adding trace information, to another SMTP server for
further relaying or for delivery.  

A "gateway" SMTP system (usually referred to just as a "gateway")
receives mail from a client system in one transport environment and
transmits it to a server system in another transport environment.
sending.  While either the client or server system must use the SMTP
service in order for this document to be relevant, there is no
requirement in a gateway environment that both do so and, typically,
one will not. system in another transport environment.
Differences in protocols or message semantics between the transport
environments on either side of a gateway may require that the gateway
system perform transformations to the message that are not permitted
to SMTP relay systems.


2.3.9 Message content and message body

The terms "message content" and "mail data" are used interchangably
in this document to describe the material transmitted after the DATA
command is accepted and before the end of data indication is
transmitted.  Message content includes message headers and the
possibly-structured message body.  The MIME specification [RFC-MIME]
provides the Standard mechanisms for structured message bodies See
##2.3.1.

2.3.10 mailbox and address

As used in this specification, an "address" is a character string
which
that identifies a user to whom mail is to will be sent or a location into
which mail is to will be deposited.  The term "mailbox" refers to that
depository.  The two terms are typically used interchangably interchangeably unless
the distinction between the location in which mail is placed (the
mailbox) and a reference to it (the address) is important.  An
address normally consists of user and domain specifications.  The
standard mailbox naming convention is defined to be
"local-part@domain": contemporary usage permits a much broader set of
applications than simple "user names" and, consequently, the
local-part is permitted to be interpreted and assigned semantics only by the host
specified in the domain part of the address.
Additionally, the "container" in which mail is stored.  <<>>Is this
terminology now consistent with the Message Format document??>>


2.3.11. reply

A

An SMTP reply is an acknowledgment (positive or negative) sent from
receiver to sender via the transmission channel in response to a
command.  The general form of a reply is a numeric completion code (including
error codes)
(indicating failure or success) followed by a text string.  The codes
are for use by programs and the text is usually intended for human
users.



2.4 Syntax Principles


2.4.1 General syntax and transaction model

The mail commands and replies have a rigid syntax.  Replies also have
a numeric code.  In the following, examples appear which use actual
commands and replies.  The complete Complete lists of commands and replies appear in
Section ##4 "The SMTP Specification".

Commands and replies are not case sensitive.  That is, a command or
reply word MAY be upper case, lower case, or any mixture of upper and
lower case.  Note that this is not NOT true of mailbox user names.  For
some hosts the user name is case sensitive (this practice impedes
interoperability and is discouraged), and therefore, SMTP implementations
MUST take care to preserve the case of user names as they appear in
mailbox arguments.  Domain names are not case sensitive.

Commands and replies are composed of characters from the ASCII
character set [1]. When the transport service provides an 8-bit byte
(octet) transmission channel, each 7-bit character is transmitted
right justified in an octet with the high order bit cleared to zero.
More specifically, the unextended SMTP service provides seven bit
transport only.  Originating SMTP clients MUST NOT transmit messages
with information in the high-order bit of octets.  If such messages
are transmitted in violation of this rule, receiving SMTP servers MAY
clear the high-order bit or reject the message as invalid.  In
general, a relay SMTP SHOULD assume that the message content it has
received is valid and, assuming that the envelope permits doing so so,
relay it without inspecting that content.  Of course, if the content
is mislabelled and the data path cannot accept the actual content,
this may result in ultimate delivery of a severely garbled message by to
the recipient and delivery recipient.  Delivery SMTP systems MAY reject ("bounce") such
messages rather than delivering deliver them.  No sending SMTP system is
permitted to send envelope commands in any character set other than
US-ASCII; receiving systems SHOULD reject such commands, normally
using "500 syntax error - invalid character" replies.

Eight-bit message content transmission MAY be requested of the server
by the a client using extended SMTP facilities, notably the "8BITMIME"
extension [8BITMIME].  8BITMIME SHOULD be supported by SMTP servers.
However, it MUST not be construed as authorization to transmit
unrestricted eight bit material; material.  8BITMIME MUST NOT be requested by
senders for material with the high bit on that is not in MIME format
with an appropriate content-transfer
encoding, "8BITMIME" MUST NOT be requested by senders encoding and servers MAY
respond as discussed above. reject
such messages. 

The metalinguistic notation used in this document corresponds to the
"Augmented BNF" used in other Internet mail system documents. The
reader who is not familiar with that syntax should consult [ABNF].
Metalanguage terms used in running text and examples are surrounded
by pointed brackets (e.g., <CRLF>) for clarity.


2.4.2 Command and reply syntax

The commands consist of a command code followed by an argument field.
Command codes are four alphabetic characters.  Upper and lower case
alphabetic characters and are to be treated identically.  Thus, any of
the following may represent the mail command:

   MAIL    Mail    mail    MaIl    mAIl case insensitive.

This also applies to any symbols representing parameter values, such
as "TO" or "to" for the forward-path.  Command codes and the argument
fields are separated by one or more spaces.  However, case is
important in the local-part within the reverse-path and forward-path arguments case is
important.
arguments.  In particular, in some hosts the user "smith" is
different from the user "Smith".

A few SMTP receiver systems, in violation of this specification (and
RFC 821) require that a particular case be transmitted by clients.
Implementations MAY wish to make provision to accomodate accommodate those
systems.

The argument field consists of a variable length character string
ending with the character sequence <CRLF>.  The receiver is to will take no
action until this sequence is received.

The syntax for each command is shown with the discussion of that
command.  Common elements and parameters are shown in section ##4.1.2.



3.  THE SMTP PROCEDURES: AN OVERVIEW

This section presents contains descriptions of the procedures used in SMTP in several parts.
After a review of SMTP:
session initiation by the server and client, there
is initiation, the basic mail procedure defined as a mail transaction.  Following
this are descriptions of transaction, forwarding mail, verifying
mailbox names and expanding mailing lists, and the opening and
closing exchanges.  At
the end of this section are comments  Comments on relaying, a note on mail domains, and
a discussion of changing roles.  Throughout this section roles are examples included at the end of this
section.  Examples of partial command and reply sequences; sequences are used
throughout; several complete scenarios are presented in Appendix ##F.


3.1 Session initiation

An SMTP session is initiated by the when a client opening opens a connection to
the
a server and the server responding responds with an opening message.

SMTP server implementations MAY include identification of their
software and version information in the connection greeting reply
after the 220 code (see section ##7.4. This ##7.4), a practice that permits much more
efficient isolation and repair of any problems.  While some
systems also identify their contact point for mail problems, this is
not a substitute for maintaining the required Postmaster address (see
[RFC822]). Implementations MAY
make provision for SMTP servers to be
configured to disable the software and version announcement where it
causes security concerns.

In some cases, a server host may wish to explicitly indicate that
SMTP is not supported, or
announcement where it causes security concerns. While some systems
also identify their contact point for mail problems, this is not supported a
substitute for connections
originating from maintaining the would-be sender's address, rather than merely
not having required "postmaster" address (see
[MSGFMT]). 

The SMTP protocol allows a listener on the relevant port and letting server to formally reject a transaction
  while still allowing the client
timeout (and potentially retry repeatedly).  In that case, initial connection as follows: a 554
response MAY be given in the initial connection opening message
instead of the 220.  A server taking this approach MUST still wait
for the client to send a QUIT (see section ##4.1.1.10) before closing
the connection and SHOULD respond to any intervening commands with
"503 bad sequence of commands".  Since an attempt to make an SMTP
connection to such a system is probably in error, a server returing returning a
554 response on connection opening SHOULD provide enough information
in the reply text to facilitate debugging of the sending system.

<<>> Note in draft: I'd really like to invent code 521 instead of
overloading 554 for this case -- opinions?? <<>>


3.2 Client initiation: EHLO

The

Once the server has sent the welcoming message and the client has
received it, the client then sends the EHLO command to the server,
indicating its the client’s identity.  In addition to opening the
session, use of EHLO indicates that the client is able to process
service extensions and requests that the server provide a list of the
extensions it supports.  Older SMTP systems, unable to support
service extensions, MAY use HELO instead of EHLO but EHLO EHLO.  Servers SHOULD be used by all current clients and
accepted by all current systems.

In NOT
return the EHLO, or extended EHLO-style response to a HELO command.

In the older HELO, EHLO command the host sending the command identifies itself;
the command may be interpreted as saying "Hello, I am <domain>" (and,
in the case of EHLO, "and I support service extension requests").

   -------------------------------------------------------------
   |
   |              Example of Connection Opening
   |
   |  R:  S: 220 BBN-UNIX.ARPA Simple Mail Transfer Service UNIX.BBN.COM SMTP Ready - trashmail 1.99.a
   |  C: EHLO ISIF.ISI.EDU
   |  S: HELO USC-ISIF.ARPA 250-UNIX.BBN.COM
   |  R:  S: 250 BBN-UNIX.ARPA EXPN
   |
   |                        Example 5 1   |
   -------------------------------------------------------------

   -------------------------------------------------------------
   |
   |              Example of Connection Closing
   |
   |  S: QUIT
   |  R: 221 BBN-UNIX.ARPA UNIX.BBN.COM Service closing transmission channel
   |
   |                        Example 6 2
   |
   -------------------------------------------------------------


3.3.  Mail Transactions

There are three steps to SMTP mail transactions.  The transaction is
started
starts with a MAIL command which gives the sender identification.  A
series of one or more RCPT commands follows giving the receiver
information.  Then a DATA command gives initiates transfer of the mail data.  And finally, data
and is terminated by the end "end of mail mail" data indicator indicator, which also
confirms the transaction.

   The first step in the procedure is the MAIL command.  The
   <reverse-path> contains the source mailbox.  

      MAIL <SP> FROM:<reverse-path> [<SP> <mail-parameters>] <CRLF>

   This command tells the SMTP-receiver that a new mail transaction
   is starting and to reset all its state tables and buffers,
   including any recipients or mail data.  It gives The <reverse-path> contains
   the
   reverse-path source mailbox, which can be used to report errors (see
   section ##4.2 for a discussion of error reporting).  If accepted,
   the SMTP server returns a 250 OK reply.   If the mailbox
   specification is not acceptable for some reason, the server MAY MUST
   return a reply indicating whether the failure is permanent (i.e.,
   will occur again if the client tries to send the same address
   again) or temporary (i.e., the address might be accepted if the
   client tries again later).  See section ##4.2.1.  Normally,
   failures produce 550 or 553 reply.

   While, historically, replies. 

   Historically, the <reverse-path> can contain more than just a
   mailbox, however, contemporary systems SHOULD NOT use source
   routing (see Appendix ##C).

   The optional <mail-parameters> are associated with negotiated SMTP
   service extensions (see section ##2.2).

   The second step in the procedure is the RCPT command.

      RCPT <SP> TO:<forward-path> [<SP> <rcpt-parameters>] <CRLF>

   This command gives a forward-path (normally a mailbox and domain)
   identifying one recipient.  If accepted, the SMTP server returns a
   250 OK reply, reply and stores the forward-path.  If the recipient is
   unknown
   known not to be a deliverable address, the SMTP server returns a
   550 reply, typically with a string such as "no such user - " and
   the SMTP server returns a 550 Failure reply mailbox name (other circumstances and reply codes are
   possible).  This second step of the procedure can be repeated any number
   of times.  The <forward-path> can contain more than just a
   mailbox.  While,
   historically,  Historically, the <forward-path> may can be a source routing
   list of hosts and the destination mailbox, however, contemporary
   SMTP clients SHOULD NOT utilize source routes (see Appendix ##C).
   Servers MUST be prepared to encounter a list of source routes in
   the forward path, but SHOULD ignore the routes or MAY decline to
   support the relaying they imply.  Similarly, servers MAY decline
   to accept mail that is destined for other hosts or systems.  Of course, such 
   a  These
   restrictions would make a server useless as a relay for clients that do
   not support full SMTP functionality, but such functionality.  Consequently,
   restricted-capability clients MUST NOT assume that any SMTP server
   on the Internet can be used as their mail processing  (relaying)
   site. If RCPT TO appears without a previous MAIL FROM, the server
   MUST return a 503 "Bad sequence of commands" response.

   Clients SHOULD NOT utilize explicit source routing except as
   discussed in Appendix ##C. The
   optional <mail-parameters> are associated with negotiated SMTP
   service extensions (see section ##2.2). 

   The third step in the procedure is the DATA command (or some
   alternative specified in a service extension).

      DATA <CRLF>

   If accepted, the SMTP server returns a 354 Intermediate reply and
   considers all succeeding lines up to but not including the end of
   mail data indicator to be the message text.  When the end of text
   is received and stored the SMTP-receiver sends a 250 OK reply.

   Since the mail data is sent on the transmission channel, the end
   of the mail data indicator must be indicated so that the command and 
   reply dialog can be resumed.  SMTP indicates the end of the mail
   data by sending a line containing only a "." (period or full
   stop).  A transparency procedure is used to prevent this from 
   interfering with the user's text (see Section ##4.5.2).

   The end of mail data indicator also confirms the mail transaction
   and tells the SMTP server to now process the stored recipients and
   mail data.  If accepted, the SMTP server returns a 250 OK reply.
   The DATA command can fail in only two ways:

      o If there was no MAIL FROM, or no RCPT TO, commands, command, or all
    	such commands were rejected, the server MAY return a "command
		out of sequence" (503) reply.   If that reply is received,
		the client MUST NOT send the message data; more generally, 
        message data MUST NOT be sent unless a 354 reply is received.

      o If the verb is initially accepted and the 354 reply issued,
        the DATA command should fail only if the mail transaction was
        incomplete (for example, no recipients), or if resources are
        not available. were
        unavailable.  However, in practice, some servers in practice do not
        perform recipient verification until after the message text
        is received.  These servers SHOULD treat a failure for one or
        more recipients as a "subsequent failure" and return a mail
        message as discussed in section ##6.   Using a "550 mailbox
        not found" (or equivalent) reply code after the data are
        accepted makes it difficult or impossible for the client to
        determine which recipients failed.

When RFC 822 format is being used, the mail data includes include the memo
header items such as Date, Subject, To, Cc, From [RFC822]. [MSGFMT].  Server
SMTP systems SHOULD NOT reject messages based on perceived defects in
the RFC 822 or MIME [MIME] [RFC-MIME] message header or message body.  In
particular, they MUST NOT reject messages on in which the basis of trying to
match numbers of 
Resent- fields.  In particular, messages MUST NOT be
rejected because fields do not match or Resent-to appears without Resent-from, Resent-date,
or both. 


The above procedure is an example of a mail transaction.  These Resent-from
and/or Resent-date. 


Mail transaction commands must MUST be used only in the order discussed above.
Example 1 3 (below) illustrates the use of these commands in a mail
transaction.


      -------------------------------------------------------------
      |
      |              Example of the SMTP Mail Transaction Procedure
      |
      |  This SMTP example shows mail sent by Smith at host Alpha.ARPA, Alpha.foo,
      |  to Jones, Green, and Brown at host Beta.ARPA. Beta.org.  Here we assume
      |  that host Alpha contacts host Beta directly.
      |
      |     S:     C: MAIL FROM:<Smith@Alpha.ARPA> FROM:<Smith@Alpha.foo
      |     R:     S: 250 OK
      |
      |     S:     C: RCPT TO:<Jones@Beta.ARPA> TO:<Jones@Beta.org
      |     R:     S: 250 OK
      |
      |     S:     C: RCPT TO:<Green@Beta.ARPA> TO:<Green@Beta.org
      |     R:     S: 550 No such user here
      |
      |     S:     C: RCPT TO:<Brown@Beta.ARPA> TO:<Brown@Beta.org
      |     R:     S: 250 OK
      |
      |     S:     C: DATA
      |     R:     S: 354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>
      |     S:     C: Blah blah blah... blah...<CRLF>
      |     S:     C: ...etc. etc. etc.
      |     S:     C: <CRLF>.<CRLF>
      |     R:     S: 250 OK
      |
      |  The mail has now been accepted for Jones and Brown.  Green did
      |  not have a mailbox at domain Beta.ARPA. Beta.org
      |
      |                        Example 1 3
      |
      -------------------------------------------------------------



3.4.  Forwarding for Address Correction or Updating

The "forwarding" mechanisms described in section 3.2 of RFC 821, and
especially the 251 reply code from RCPT TO that indicates a corrected
destination, are no longer in active use.

Forwarding support is most often required to consolidate and simplify
addresses within, or relative to, some enterprise.  In most enterprise and less frequently
to establish addresses to link a person’s prior address with a
current one.. Silent forwarding of those messages (without server
notification to the sender), for security or non-disclosure purposes,
is common in the contemporary Internet.

In both the enterprise and the "new address" cases, information
hiding (and sometimes security) considerations argue against exposure
of the "final" address through the SMTP protocol as a consequence of side-effectof
the forwarding activity and, in some cases, that activity.  This may be especially important when the
final address may not even be reachable by the sender.

Silent forwarding of messages (without server notification to the
sender) is common in the contemporary Internet.

If  Consequently,
the forwarding and address correction "forwarding" mechanisms described in section 3.2 of RFC
821 821, and
especially the 251 (corrected destination) reply code from RCPT TO
are used, the addresses given should be stable enough deprecated: Servers SHOULD NOT provide that it
would be reasonable for the client to update local records with them. service or return
that code.



3.5.  Commands for Debugging Addresses

3.5.1 Overview

SMTP provides, as additional features, provides commands to verify a user name or expand a mailing
list.  This is done with the VRFY and EXPN commands, which have
character string arguments.  Implementations MUST support VRFY and
SHOULD support EXPN (however, see section ##3.5.2 and ##7.3). 

For the VRFY command, the string is a user name or a user name and
domain (see below) and the below). The response may include MAYinclude the full name of the user
and must MUST include the mailbox of the user, e.g., it MUST BE be in either
    User Name <mailbox@domain> 
or
    mailbox@domain 
form.

Paths (explicit source routes) MUST NOT be returned by VRFY or EXPN.


When a name that is the argument to VRFY could identify more than one
mailbox, the server MAY either note the ambiguity or identify the
alternatives.  In other words, either of the following are legitimate
response to VRFY:

        553 User ambiguous
   or
        553- Ambiguous;  Possibilities are
        553-Joe Smith <jsmith@somedomain>
        553-Harry Smith <hsmith@somedomain>
        553 Melvin Smith <dweep@somedomain>
  or
		553-Ambiguous;  Possibilities 
		553- <jsmith@somedomain>
		553- <hsmith@somedomain>
		553 <dweep@somedomain>

Under normal circumstances circumstances, a client receiving a 553 reply would be
expected to expose the result to the user.  Use of exactly the forms
given, and the "user ambiguous" or "ambiguous" keywords, possibly
supplemented by extended reply codes as described in [RFC-REPLY],
will facilitate automated translation into other languages as needed.
Of course, a client that was highly automated or that was operating
in another language than English, might choose to try to translate
the response, to return some other indication to the user than the
literal text of the reply, or to take some automated action such as
consulting a directory service for additional information before
reporting to the user.

For the EXPN command, the string identifies a mailing list, and the
multiline response MAY include the full name of the users and MUST
give the mailboxes on the mailing list.

"User name" is a fuzzy term and used purposely.  An implementation of
the VRFY or EXPN commands MUST include at least recognition of local
mailboxes as "user names".  However, since current Internet practice
often results in a single host handling mail for multiple domains,
hosts, especially hosts that provide this functionality, SHOULD
accept the "user@domain" form as a "user name"; hosts MAY also choose
to recognize other strings as "user names".

In some hosts the distinction between a mailing list and an alias for
a single mailbox is a bit fuzzy, since a common data structure may
hold both types of entries, and it is possible to have mailing lists
of one mailbox.  If a request is made to verify a mailing list list, a
positive response can be given if on receipt of a message so addressed it will would be
delivered to everyone on the list, otherwise an error should be
reported (e.g., "550 That is a mailing list, not a user").  If a
request is made to expand a user name, the server MAY return a
positive response consisting of a list containing one name, or an
error MAY be reported (e.g., "550 That is a user name, not a mailing
list").

In the case of a multiline reply (normal for EXPN) exactly one
mailbox is to be specified on each line of the reply.  The case of an
ambiguous request is discussed above.

"User name" is a fuzzy term and has been used deliberately.  An
implementation of the VRFY or EXPN commands MUST include at least
recognition of local mailboxes as "user names".  However, since
current Internet practice often results in a single host handling
mail for multiple domains, hosts, especially hosts that provide this
functionality, SHOULD accept the "user@domain" form as a "user name";
hosts MAY also choose to recognize other strings as "user names".



The case of verifying a user name is straightforward as shown in
example 3. 4.


  -----------------------------------------------------------------
  |
  |           Example of Verifying a User Name
  |
  | Either
  |
  |   S:   C: VRFY Smith
  |   R:   S: 250 Fred Smith <Smith@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
  |
  | Or
  |
  |   S: VRFY Smith
  |   R: 251 User not local; will forward to <Smith@USC-ISIQ.ARPA> <Smith@F.ISI.EDU >
  |
  | Or
  |
  |   S:   C: VRFY Jones
  |   R:   S: 550 String does not match anything.
  |
  | Or
  |
  |   S:   C: VRFY Jones
  |   R:   S: 551 User not local; please try <Jones@USC-ISIQ.ARPA> <Jones@ ISIQ.ISI.EDU>
  |
  | Or
  |
  |   S:   C: VRFY Gourzenkyinplatz
  |   R:   S: 553 User ambiguous.
  |
  | Or
  |
  |   C: VRFY fizzle
  |   S: 252-Cannot VRFY fizzle, but will accept message and 
  |   S: 252 attempt delivery
  |
  |                      Example 3 4
  |
  -----------------------------------------------------------------

      The case of expanding a mailbox list requires a multiline reply
	  as shown in example 4. 5.

  -------------------------------------------------------------
  |
  |           Example of Expanding a Mailing List
  |
  |  Either
  |
  |     S:     C: EXPN Example-People
  |     R:     S: 250-Jon Postel <Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA> <Postel@isi.edu
  |     R:     S: 250-Fred Fonebone <Fonebone@USC-ISIQ.ARPA> <Fonebone@physics.foo-u.edu>
  |     R:     S: 250-Sam Q. Smith <SQSmith@USC-ISIQ.ARPA> <SQSmith@specific.generic.com>>
  |     R:     S: 250-Quincy Smith <@USC-ISIF.ARPA:Q-Smith@ISI-VAXA.ARPA> <Q-Smith@VAXA.EDU
  |     R: 250-<joe@foo-unix.ARPA>     S: 250-<joe@totalitarian.org>
  |     R:     S: 250 <xyz@bar-unix.ARPA> <xyz@dominance.universal.int>
  |
  |  Or
  |
  |     S:     C EXPN Executive-Washroom-List
  |     R:     S: 550 Access Denied to You.
  |
  |                        Example 4 5
  |
  -------------------------------------------------------------

      The character string arguments of the VRFY and EXPN commands
      cannot be further restricted due to the variety of
	  implementations of the user name and mailbox list concepts.  On
	  some systems it may be appropriate for the argument of the EXPN
	  command to be a file name for a file containing a mailing list,
	  but again there is are a variety of file naming conventions in the
	  Internet. 


3.5.2  VRFY normal response.

When normal (2yz or 551) responses are returned from a VRFY or EXPN
request, the reply should normally include the mailbox name, e.g.,
"<foo@bar>" (where "bar" is a fully qualified domain name) must
appear in the syntax.  In exceptional circumstances, free-form text
MAY be returned.  In order to facilitate parsing by both computers
and people, addresses SHOULD appear in pointed brackets.  EXPN and
VRFY MUST return only valid domain addresses that are usable in SMTP
RCPT commands.  Consequently, if an address implies delivery to a
program or other system, the mailbox name used to reach that target
MUST be given. Paths (explicit source routes) MUST NOT be returned by
VRFY or EXPN.


Server implementations MUST support VRFY and SHOULD support EXPN.
For security reasons, implementations MAY provide local installations
a way to disable either or both of these commands through
configuration options or the equivalent.  When these commands are
supported, they are not required to work across relays when relaying
is supported.  Since they were both optional in RFC 821, they MUST,
if supported, be listed in the response to EHLO if service extensions
are supported.


3.5.3 Meaning of VRFY or EXPN success response.

A server MUST NOT return a 220 code in response to a VRFY or EXPN
command unless it has actually verified the address.  In particular,
a server MUST NOT return 220 if all it has done is to verify that the
syntax given is valid.  In that case case, 502 (Command not implemented)
or 500 (Syntax error, command unrecognized) SHOULD be returned.  As
provided
stated elsewhere, implementation of VRFY is required and EXPN is
strongly recommended.  Hence, except as provided in section ##7.3,
implementations that return 500 or 502 for VRFY are not in compliance
with this specification.

Especially when a server is acting as a mail exchanger for another,
there

There may be circumstances where an address appears to be valid but
cannot reasonably be verified in real time. time, particularly when a
server is acting as a mail exchanger for another server or domain.
"Apparent validity" in this case would normally involve at least
syntax checking and might involve verification that any domains
specified were one for ones to which the host expected to be able to relay
mail.  In these situations, reply code 252 SHOULD BE returned.  These
cases parallel the discussion of RCPT verification discussed in
section ##2.1 although
implementations Implementations generally SHOULD be more aggressive
about address verification in the case of VRFY than in the case of RCPT
RCPT, even if it takes a little more time is required longer to do so.


3.5.4. Semantics and applications of EXPN.

While

EXPN is often very useful in debugging and understanding problems
with mailing lists and multiple-target-address aliases, some aliases. Some systems
have attempted to use source expansion of mailing lists as a means of
eliminating duplicates.  The propagation of aliasing systems with
mail on the Internet--both for hosts (typically with MX and CNAME DNS
records) and for mailboxes (various types of local host
aliases) has aliases)--has
made it nearly impossible for these strategies to work, and mail
systems SHOULD NOT attempt them.



3.6.  Domains

Domains have become a key concept in the Internet mail system.  The
use of domains changes the address space from a flat global space of
simple character string host names to a hierarchically structured
rooted tree of global addresses.  The host name is replaced by a
domain designator which is a sequence of domain element strings
separated by periods with the understanding that the


Only resolvable, fully-qualified, domain elements names (FQDNs) are ordered from the most specific to the most general.

For example, "ISIF.ISI.EDU", "Fred.Cambridge.AC.UK", and
"PC7.LCS.MIT.EDU" might be domain identifiers.

Whenever permitted
when domain names are used in SMTP, only resolvable,
fully-qualified, domain names (FQDNs) are permitted. SMTP.  In other words, names that can
be resolved to MX RRs or A RRs (as discussed in section ##5) are
permitted, as are CNAME RRs whose targets can be resolved, in turn,
to MX or A RRs.  Local nicknames or unqualified names MUST NOT be
used.  There are two exceptions to this rule: (i) The domain name
given in the EHLO (or HELO) command MUST BE either a primary host name (a
domain name that resolves to an A RR) or, if the host has no name, an
address literal as described in section ##4.1.1.1 and (ii) The
reserved mailbox name "Postmaster" "postmaster" may be used in a RCPT TO command
without domain qualification (see section ##4.1.1.3).



3.7.  RELAYING

In general, the availability of Mail eXchanger records in the domain
name system [RFC-DNS] makes the use of explicit source routes in the
Internet mail system unnecessary.  Many historical problems with
their interpretation have made their use undesirable.  SMTP clients
SHOULD NOT generate explicit source routes except under unusual
circumstances.  SMTP servers MAY decline to act as mail relays or to
accept addresses that specify source routes.  They are also permitted
to ignore the route information and simply send to the final
destination as specified as the last element in the route and the DNS.  However, there . There has
been a practice, albeit invalid, an invalid practice of using names that do not appear in the DNS
as destination names, with the senders counting on the intermediate
hosts specified in source routing to resolve any problems.  If source
routes are stripped, this practice will cause failures -- one of
several reasons why SMTP clients MUST NOT generate invalid source
routes or depend on serial resolution of names.

If

When source routes are not used, the process described in RFC 821 for
constructing a reverse-path from the forward-path is not applicable
and the reverse-path at the time of delivery will simply be the
address that appeared in the MAIL command.

A relay SMTP server is usually the target of a DNS MX record that
designates it it, rather than the final delivery system.  It receives
mail to be relayed to another SMTP server. The relay
server may accept or reject the task of relaying the mail in the same
way it accepts or rejects mail for a local user.  If it accepts the
task, it then becomes an SMTP client, establishes a transmission
channel to the next SMTP server specified in the DNS (according to
the rules in section ##5), and sends it the mail.

If an SMTP server has accepted the task of relaying the mail and
later finds that the destination is incorrect or that the mail cannot
be delivered for some other reason, then it MUST construct an
"undeliverable mail" notification message and send it to the
originator of the undeliverable mail (as indicated by the
reverse-path).  Formats specified for non-delivery reports by other
standards SHOULD be used if possible.

This notification message must be from the SMTP server at the relay
host or the host that first determines that delivery cannot be
accomplished.  Of course, SMTP servers MUST NOT send notification
messages about problems with transporting notification messages.  One way
to prevent loops in error reporting is to specify a null reverse-path
in the MAIL command of a notification message.  When such a message
is transmitted the reverse-path MUST BE set beset to null.  A MAIL command
with a null reverse-path appears as follows:

   MAIL FROM:<>

An undeliverable mail notification message is shown in example 7. 6.
This notification is in response to a message originated by JOE at
HOSTW
xyz.somecollege.edu and sent via HOSTX to HOSTY with instructions to relay it a user on to
HOSTZ.  What we see in the example is the transaction between HOSTY
and HOSTX, which is the first step in the return of the notification
message. HOSTY.org 

      -------------------------------------------------------------
      |
      |     Example Undeliverable Mail Notification Message
      |
      |  S:  C: MAIL FROM:<>
      |  R:  S: 250 ok
      |  S:  C: RCPT TO:<@HOSTX.ARPA:JOE@HOSTW.ARPA> TO:< JOE@xyz.somecollege.edu>
      |  R:  S: 250 ok
      |  S:  C: DATA
      |  R:  S: 354 send the mail data, end with .
      |  S:  C: Date: 23 Oct 81 11:22:33
      |  S:  C: From: SMTP@HOSTY.ARPA SMTP@HOSTY.org
      |  S:  C: To: JOE@HOSTW.ARPA JOE@xyz.somecollege.edu
      |  S:  C: Subject: Mail System Problem
      |  S:
<<>>replace  C:
<<replace with NOTARY format <<>> >>
      |  S:  C: .
      |  R:  S: 250 ok
      |
      |                        Example 7 6
      |
      -------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in section ##2.4.1, a relay SMTP has no need to inspect
or act upon the headers or body of the message data and MUST NOT do
so.




3.8  Mail Gatewaying

While the relay function discussed above hands mail off operates within the Internet
SMTP transport service environment, either MX records or various forms of
explicit routing may require that an intermediate SMTP server perform
a translation function between one transport service and another.  As
discussed in section ##2.3.8, when such a system is at the boundary
between two transport service environments, we refer to it as a
"gateway" or "gateway SMTP".

Gatewaying mail between different mail environments, i.e., different
mail formats and protocols, is complex and does not easily yield to
standardization.  However, some general requirements may be given for
a gateway between the Internet and another mail environment.


3.8.1  Header fields MAY be rewritten when necessary as messages are
gatewayed across mail environment boundaries. 

This may involve inspecting the message body or interpreting the
local-part of the destination address in spite of the prohibitions in ##___.
section ##2.4.1 

Other mail systems gatewayed to the Internet often use a subset of
RFC-822 headers or their functionality, provide similar functionality with a different
syntax, but some of
      them these mail systems do not have an equivalent to
the SMTP envelope.  Therefore, when a message leaves the Internet
environment, it may be necessary to fold the SMTP envelope
information into the message header.  A possible solution would be to
create new header fields to carry the envelope information (e.g.,
"X-SMTP-MAIL:" and "X-SMTP-RCPT:"); however, this would require
changes in mail programs in the foreign environment. environments.


3.8.2 When forwarding a message into or out of the Internet
environment, a gateway MUST prepend a Received: line, but it MUST NOT
alter in any way a Received: line that is already in the header. 

      "Received:" 

Received: fields of messages originating from other environments may
not conform exactly to this specification.  However, the most
important use of Received: lines is for debugging mail faults, and
this debugging can be severely hampered by well-meaning gateways that
try to "fix" a Received: line.  As another consequence of trace
fields arising in non-SMTP environments, receiving systems MUST NOT
reject mail based on the format of a trace field and SHOULD be
extremely robust in the light of unexpected information or formats in
those fields.

The gateway SHOULD indicate the environment and protocol in the "via"
clauses of Received field(s) that it supplies.


3.8.3 From the Internet side, the gateway SHOULD accept all valid
address formats in SMTP commands and in RFC-822 headers, and all
valid RFC-822 messages.  Gateways are, of course, subject to the same
rules for handling source routes as those described for other SMTP
systems in section ##3.3.


3.8.4 The gateway MUST ensure that all header fields of a message
that it forwards into the Internet meet the requirements for Internet
mail.  In particular, all addresses in "From:", "To:", "Cc:", etc.,
fields must be MUSTbe transformed (if necessary) to satisfy RFC-822 syntax,
MUST reference only fully-qualified domain names, and they must be MUSTbe
effective and useful for sending replies.  3.8.5 The translation
algorithm used to convert mail from the Internet protocols to another
environment's protocol SHOULD ensure that error messages from the
foreign mail environment are delivered to the return path from the
SMTP envelope, not to the sender listed in the "From:" field (or
other fields) of the RFC-822 message. 

3.8.6 Similarly, when forwarding a message from another environment
into the Internet, the gateway SHOULD set the envelope return path in
accordance with an error message return address, if
       any, supplied by the
foreign environment.  If the foreign environment has no equivalent
concept, the gateway must select and use a best approximation, with
the message originator’s address as the default of last resort.



3.9.  Terminating Sessions and Connections

An SMTP connection is terminated by when the client's sending client sends a QUIT
command.  The server then responds with a positive reply code, after which
it closes the connection.

An SMTP server MUST NOT intentionally close the connection except: 

   o After receiving a QUIT command and responding with a 221 reply. 

   o After detecting the need to shutdown the SMTP service and
     returning a message with a 451 response code.  This response
	 code can be issued after the server receives any command or, if
	 necessary, asynchronously from command receipt (on the
	 assumption that the client will receive it after the next
	 command is issued).

In particular, a server that closes connections in response to
commands that are not understood is in violation of this
specification.  Instead, servers Servers are expected to be tolerant of unknown
commands, issuing a 500 reply and awaiting further instructions from
the client.

An SMTP server which is forcibly shut down via external means SHOULD
attempt to send a line containing 451 response code to the SMTP
client before exiting.  The SMTP client will normally read the 451
response code after sending its next command.

SMTP clients that experience a connection close, reset, or other
communications failure due to circumstances not under their control
(in violation of the intent of this specification but sometimes
unavoidable) should, to maintain the robustness of the mail system,
treat the mail transaction as if a 451 response had been received and
act accordingly.





3.10  Mailing Lists and Aliases

An SMTP-capable host SHOULD support both the alias and the list form
of address expansion for multiple delivery.  When a message is
delivered or forwarded to each address of an expanded list form, the
return address in the envelope ("MAIL FROM:") MUST be changed to be
the address of a person or other entity who administers the list, list but
the message header MUST be left unchanged; in particular, the "From"
field of the message is unaffected.

An important mail facility is a mechanism for multi-destination
delivery of a single message, by transforming or "expanding" a
pseudo-mailbox address into a list of destination mailbox addresses.
When a message is sent to such a pseudo-mailbox (sometimes called an
"exploder"), copies are forwarded or redistributed to each mailbox in
the expanded list.  We classify such a pseudo-mailbox as an "alias"
or a "list", depending upon the expansion rules: rules.


3.10.1 Alias

To expand an alias, the recipient mailer simply replaces the
pseudo-mailbox address in the envelope with each of the expanded
addresses in turn; the rest of the envelope and the message body are
left unchanged.  The message is then delivered or forwarded to each
expanded address.


3.10.11 List

A mailing list may be said to operate by "redistribution" rather than
by "forwarding".  To expand a list, the recipient mailer replaces the
pseudo-mailbox address in the envelope with each of the expanded
addresses in turn. The return address in the envelope is changed so
that all error messages generated by the final deliveries will be
returned to a list administrator, not to the message originator, who
generally has no control over the contents of the list and will
typically find error messages annoying.




4.  THE SMTP SPECIFICATIONS

4.1.  SMTP COMMANDS

4.1.1.  COMMAND SEMANTICS AND SYNTAX

The SMTP commands define the mail transfer or the mail system
function requested by the user.  SMTP commands are character strings
terminated by <CRLF>.  The command codes themselves are alphabetic
characters terminated by <SP> if parameters follow and <CRLF>
otherwise.  The syntax of the local part of a mailbox must conform to
receiver site conventions and the syntax specified in section
##4.1.2.  The SMTP commands are discussed below.  The SMTP replies
are discussed in Section ##4.2.

A mail transaction involves several data objects which are
communicated as arguments to different commands.  The reverse-path is
the argument of the MAIL command, the forward-path is the argument of
the RCPT command, and the mail data is the argument of the DATA
command.  These arguments or data objects must be transmitted and
held pending the confirmation communicated by the end of mail data
indication which finalizes the transaction.  The model for this is
that distinct buffers are provided to hold the types of data objects,
that is, there is a reverse-path buffer, a forward-path buffer, and a
mail data buffer.  Specific commands cause information to be appended
to a specific buffer, or cause one or more buffers to be cleared.


4.1.1.1  Extended HELLO (EHLO) or HELLO (HELO)

These commands are used to identify the SMTP client to the SMTP
server.  The argument field contains the fully-qualified domain name
of the SMTP client if one is available.  In situations in which the
SMTP client system does not have a meaningful domain name (e.g., when
its address is dynamically allocated and no reverse mapping record is
available,
available), the client should send an address literal (see section
##4.1.3), optionally followed by information that will help to
identify the client system.

The SMTP server identifies itself to the SMTP client in the
connection greeting reply, reply and in the response to this command.

A client SMTP SHOULD start an SMTP session by issuing the EHLO
command. If the SMTP server supports the SMTP service extensions it
will give a successful response, a failure response, or an error
response. If the SMTP server, in violation of this specification,
does not support any SMTP service extensions it will generate an
error response.  Older client SMTP systems MAY, as discussed above,
use HELO (as specified in RFC 821) instead of EHLO. EHLO and servers MUST
support the HELO command and reply properly to it.

These commands, and a "250 OK" reply to one of them, confirm that
both the SMTP client and the SMTP server are in the initial state,
that is, there is no transaction in progress and all state tables and
buffers are cleared.

Normally, the response to EHLO will be a multiline reply.  Each line
of the response contains a keyword and, optionally, one or more
parameters.  The syntax for a positive response, using the ABNF
notation and low-level terminals of [ABNF], is:

     ehlo-ok-rsp  ::=      "250"    domain [ SP greeting ] CR LF
                    / (    "250-"   domain [ SP greeting ] CR LF
                        *( "250-"      ehlo-line           CR LF )
                           "250"    SP ehlo-line           CR LF   )

                  ; the usual HELO chit-chat

     greeting     ::= 1*<any character other than CR or LF>

     ehlo-line    ::= ehlo-keyword *( SP ehlo-param )

     ehlo-keyword ::= (ALPHA / DIGIT) *(ALPHA / DIGIT / "-")

                  ; syntax and values depend on ehlo-keyword
     ehlo-param   ::= 1*<any CHAR excluding SP and all
                         control characters (US ASCII 0-31
                         inclusive)>

[[xxx     ALPHA        ::= <any one of the 52 alphabetic characters
                       (A through Z in upper case, and,
                        a through z in lower case)>
     DIGIT        ::= <any one of the 10 numeric characters
                       (0 through 9)>

     CR           ::= <the carriage-return character
                       (ASCII decimal code 13)>
     LF           ::= <the line-feed character
                       (ASCII decimal code 10)>
     SP           ::= <the space character
                       (ASCII decimal code 32)>    /xxx]]

Although EHLO keywords may be specified in upper, lower, or mixed
case, they must always be recognized and processed in a
case-insensitive manner. This is simply an extension of practices
specified in RFC 821 and section ##2.4.1.


4.1.1.2 MAIL (MAIL)

This command is used to initiate a mail transaction in which the mail
data is delivered to one or more mailboxes.  The argument field
contains a reverse-path.

The reverse-path consists of the sender mailbox or a list of hosts as
described in Appendix C.  In some types of reporting messages for
which a reply is likely to cause a mail loop (for example, mail
delivery and nondelivery notifications) notifications), the reverse-path may be null
(see section ##3.7).

This command clears the reverse-path buffer, the forward-path buffer,
and the mail data buffer; and inserts the reverse-path information
from this command into the reverse-path buffer.

If service extensions were negotiated, the MAIL command may also
carry parameters associated with a particular service extension. 

Syntax: "MAIL FROM:" Reverse-path  [ SP Mail-parameters ]
                             or
        "MAIL FROM:<>"


4.1.1.3 RECIPIENT (RCPT)

This command is used to identify an individual recipient of the mail
data; multiple recipients are specified by multiple use of this
command.

The forward-path normally consists a of the required destination mailbox.
mailbox(es).  Sending systems SHOULD not generate the optimal list of
hosts known as a source route.  Receiving systems MUST recognize
source route syntax but SHOULD strip off the source route
specification and utilize the domain name associated with the mailbox
as if the source route had not appeared. been provided.

Similarly, relay hosts SHOULD strip or ignore source routes routes, and
names MUST NOT be copied into the reverse-path. When mail reaches its
ultimate destination (the forward-path contains only a destination
mailbox), the SMTP server inserts it into the destination mailbox in
accordance with its host mail conventions.


For example, mail received at relay host A with envelope commands

      MAIL FROM:<USERX@HOSTY.ARPA> FROM:<USERX@Y.foo.org
      RCPT TO:<@HOSTA.ARPA,@HOSTB.ARPA:USERC@HOSTD.ARPA> TO:<@HOSTA.INT,@HOSTB.INT:USERC@D.bar.org>

will normally be sent directly on to host D D.bar.org with envelope
commands

      MAIL FROM:<USERX@HOSTY.ARPA> FROM:<USERX@foo.org>
      RCPT TO:<USERC@HOSTD.ARPA> TO:<USERC@D.bar.org>

as provided in Appendix C, HostA MAY also choose to relay the message
to HostB, using the envelope commands

      MAIL FROM:<USERX@HOSTY.ARPA>
      RCPT TO:<@HOSTB.ARPA:USER@HOSTD.ARPA>

   of TO:<@HOSTB.int:USERC@D. BAR.ORG>

Of course, since hosts are not required to relay mail at all, HostA
may also reject the message entirely when the RCPT TO command is
received, using a 550 code (since this is a "policy reason").

If service extensions were negotiated, the RCPT TO command may also
carry parameters associated with a particular service extension
offered by the server.  The client MUST NOT transmit parameters other
than those associated with a service extension offered by the server
in its EHLO response.

Syntax: "RCPT TO:" Forward-path  [ SP Rcpt-parameters ]
                     or
        "RCPT TO:<Postmaster>" [SP [ SP Rcpt-parameters ]


4.1.1.4 DATA (DATA)

The receiver treats the lines (strings ending in CRLF sequences, see
section ##2.3.7) following the command as mail data from the sender.
This command causes the mail data from this command to be appended to the mail data
buffer.  The mail data may contain any of the 128 ASCII character
codes, although experience has indicated that use of control
characters other then than SP, HT, CR, and LF may cause problems and
should be avoided when possible.

The mail data is terminated by a line containing only a period, that
is
is, the character sequence "<CRLF>.<CRLF>" (see Section ##4.5.2 on
Transparency).  This is the end of mail data indication.  Note that
the first <CRLF> of this terminating sequence is also the <CRLF> that
ends the final line of the data (message text) or, if there was not no
data, ends the DATA command itself.  An extra <CRLF> MUST NOT be
added, as that would cause an empty line to be added to the message.
The only exception to this rule would arise if the message body were
passed to the originating SMTP-sender with a final "line" that did
not end in <CRLF>; in that case, the originating SMTP system MUST
either reject the message as invalid or add <CRLF> in order to have
the receiving SMTP server recognize the "end of data" condition.

The custom of accepting lines ending only in LF, <LF>, as a concession to
non-conforming behavior on the part of some UNIX systems, has proven
to cause more interoperability problems than it solves solves, and SMTP
server systems MUST NOT do this, even in the name of improved
robustness.  In particular, the sequence "LF.LF" "<LF>.<LF>" (bare line
feeds, without carriage returns) MUST NOT be treated as equivalent to
CRLF.CRLF
<CRLF>.<CRLF> as the end of mail data indication.

Receipt of the end of mail data indication requires that the server to
process the stored mail transaction information.  This processing
consumes the information in the reverse-path buffer, the forward-path
buffer, and the mail data buffer, and on the completion of this
command these buffers are cleared.  If the processing is successful
the receiver must send an OK reply.  If the processing fails
completely the receiver must send
receiver must send a failure reply. The SMTP model does not allow for
partial failures at this point: either the message is accepted by the
server for delivery and a positive response is returned or it is not
accepted and a failure reply. reply is returned.  Errors that are diagnosed
subsequently MUST be reported in a mail message, as discussed in
section ##4.4 In sending a positive completion reply to the end of
data indication, the receiver takes full responsibility for the
message (see section ##6.1).

When the SMTP server accepts a message either for relaying or for
final delivery delivery, it inserts a trace record (also referred to
interchangabily
interchangeably as a "time stamp line" or "Received" line) at the top
of the mail data.  This trace record indicates the identity of the
host that sent the message, and the identity of the host that received
the message (and that is inserting this time stamp), and the date and time
the message was received.  Relayed messages will have multiple time
stamp lines.  Details for formation of these lines, including their
syntax, is specified in section ##4.4.


4.1.1.5 RESET (RSET)

This command specifies that the current mail transaction is to will be
aborted.  Any stored sender, recipients, and mail data MUST be
discarded, and all buffers and state tables cleared.  The receiver
MUST send a "250 OK" reply.  A reset command may be issued by the
client at any time.  It is effectively equivalent to a NOOP if issued
immediately after EHLO or HELO, EHLO, or before either of those commands are
issued.  In other situations, it restores the state to that
immediately after the most recent EHLO or HELO. EHLO.  An SMTP server MUST NOT
close the connection as the result of receiving a RSET; that action
is reserved for QUIT (see section ##4.1.1.10, below).

Since EHLO and HELO imply some additional processing and response by the
server, RSET will normally be more efficient than reissuing those
commands
commands, even though the formal semantics are the same.

There are circumstances, contrary to the intent of this
specification, in which an SMTP server may receive an indication that
the underlying TCP connection has been closed or reset.  To preserve
the robustness of the mail system, SMTP servers should be prepared
for this condition and should treat them it as if a RSET, followed by a
QUIT, had been received before the connection disappeared.

4.1.1.6  VERIFY (VRFY)

This command asks the receiver to confirm that the argument
identifies a user or mailbox.  If it is a user name, the full name of
the user (if known) and the fully specified mailbox are returned.
VRFY information is described in detail
returned as specified in section ##3.5.

This command has no effect on any of the reverse-path buffer, the
forward-path buffer, or the mail data buffer.

Syntax:  "VRFY" SP String

4.1.1.7 EXPAND (EXPN)

This command asks the receiver to confirm that the argument
identifies a mailing list, and if so, to return the membership of
that list.  The full name of the users (if known) and  If the fully
specified mailboxes are returned in command is successful, a multiline reply.  EXPN reply is
returned containing information as described in detail in section ##3.5.

This command has no effect on any of the reverse-path buffer, the
forward-path buffer, or the mail data buffer.

Syntax: "EXPN" SP String

4.1.1.8 HELP (HELP)

This command causes the receiver server to send helpful information to the
sender of the HELP command.
client.  The command MAY take an argument (e.g., any command name)
and return more specific information as a response.

This command has no effect on any of the reverse-path buffer, the
forward-path buffer, or the mail data buffer.

SMTP servers SHOULD support HELP even if the form without arguments and MAY support it
with an argument is
not supported. arguments.

Syntax: "HELP" [ SP String ]


4.1.1.9 NOOP (NOOP)

This command does not affect any parameters or previously entered
commands.  It specifies no action other than that the receiver send
an OK reply.

This command has no effect on any of the reverse-path buffer, the
forward-path buffer, or the mail data buffer.

Syntax: "NOOP" [SP String]

4.1.1.10 QUIT (QUIT)

This command specifies that the receiver must send an OK reply, and
then close the transmission channel.

The receiver MUST NOT intentionally close the transmission channel
until it receives and replies to a QUIT command (even if there was an
error).  The sender MUST NOT intentionally close the transmission
channel until it send sends a QUIT command and receives the reply (even if
there was an error response to a previous command).  If the
connection is closed prematurely due to violations of the above or
system or network failure failure, the server MUST act as if a RSET command
had been received (cancelling (canceling any pending transaction, but not undoing
any previously completed transaction) and the client MUST act as if
the command or transaction in progress had received a temporary error
(4xx).

Syntax:  "QUIT"


4.1.2.  LOWER-LEVEL SYNTAX

The syntax of the argument fields of the above commands (using the
syntax specified in [ABNF] where applicable) is given below.  Some of
the productions given below are used only in conjunction with source
routes as described in Appendix C.

   Reverse-path ::= Path

   Forward-path ::= Path

   Path ::= "<" [ A-d-l ":" ] <mailbox> ">"

   A-d-l ::= At-domain *( "," A-d-l )

   At-domain ::= "@" Domain

   Mail-parameters ::= *( SP Keyword "=" Argument )

   Rcpt-parameters ::=  *( SP Keyword "=" Argument )

   Keyword  ::= String <<>>???
   Argument ::= String <<>>???

   Domain ::= sub-domain 1*("." sub-domain) | address-literal

   sub-domain ::= let-dig *(ldh-str)
   address-literal ::= "[" IPv4-address-literal | 
                  IPv6-address-literal | General-address-literal "]"
   IPv4-address-literal ::= snum 3("." snum)
   IPv6-address-literal ::= "IPv6" SP <<>>what <<what did we finally decide on? on?>>
   General-address-literal ::= Standardized-tag SP String
   Standardized-tag ::= String (Specified in a standards-track RFC
                                and registered with IANA)
   snum = one, two, or three digits representing a decimal
     integer value in the range 0 through 255
   let-dig = Alpha / Digit
   ldh-str = *( Alpha / Digit / "-" ) let-dig

<<>>

<< Placeholder: the following are not right, and the "alpha" one
may
<<may need separate rules for case-sensitive and case-insensitive.
Waiting
<<Waiting for ABNF to stabilize. <<>> >>

   Alpha = ASCII character in the range A-Z or a-z.  As specified in
     the domain name system definition [RFC-DNS], case is not
     significant in domain strings.  
   Digit = 0 - 9

   Mailbox ::= Local-part "@" Domain

   Local-part ::= Dot-string | Quoted-string

While the above definition for Local-part above is relatively permissive,
for maximum interoperability interoperability, a host that expects to receive mail
SHOULD avoid defining mailboxes where the Local-part requires (or
uses) the Quoted-string form or where the Local-part is
case-sensitive.  For any purposes that require generating or
comparing Local-parts (e.g., to specific mailbox names), all quoted
forms MUST be treated as equivalent and the sending system SHOULD
transmit the form that uses the minimum quoting possible. 

Systems MUST NOT define mailboxes in such a way as to require the use
of non-ASCII characters (octets with the high order bit set to one)
or ASCII "control characters" (decimal value 0-31 and 127).  These
characters MUST NOT be used in MAIL FROM or RCPT TO commands or other
commands that require mailbox names.


<<?>>   <string> ::= <char> | <char> <string>

<<?>>   <quoted-string> ::=  """ <qtext> """

<<?>>   <qtext> ::=  "\" <x> | "\" <x> <qtext> | <q> | <q> <qtext>

   <char> ::= <c> | "\" <x>

   <number> ::= <d> | <d> <number>

   <CRLF> ::= <CR> <LF>

   <CR> ::= the carriage return character (ASCII code 13)

   <LF> ::= the line feed character (ASCII code 10)

   <SP> ::= the space character (ASCII code 32)

   <a> ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z
             in upper case and a through z in lower case

   <c> ::= any one of the 128 ASCII characters, but not any
             <special> or <SP>

   <d> ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9

   <q> ::= any one of the 128 ASCII characters except <CR>,
             <LF>, quote ("), or backslash (\)

   <x> ::= any one of the 128 ASCII characters (no exceptions)

   <special> ::= "<" | ">" | "(" | ")" | "[" | "]" | "\" | "."
             | "," | ";" | ":" | "@"  """ | the control
             characters (ASCII codes 0 through 31 inclusive and
             127)

Note that the backslash, "\", is a quote character, which is used to
indicate that the next character is to be used literally (instead of
its normal interpretation).  For example, "Joe\,Smith" could be used to indicate indicates a
single nine character user field with the comma being the fourth
character of the field.

Characters outside the set of alphas, digits, and hyphen MUST NOT
appear in domain names.  In particular, the underscore character is
not permitted.

            

4.1.3. Address literals

Sometimes a host is not known to the domain name system and
communication (and, in particular, communication to report and repair
the error) is blocked.  To bypass this barrier a special literal form
of the address is also allowed as an alternative to
host "names". a domain name.  For
IPv4 addresses, this form uses four or more small decimal integers
separated by dots and enclosed by brackets, e.g., "[123.255.37.2]", [123.255.37.2],
which indicates an (IPv4) Internet Address in sequence-of-octets
form.  For IPv6 and other forms of addressing that might eventually
be standardized, the form consists of a standardized "tag" that
identifies the address syntax, a space, and the address itself, in a
format specified elsewhere. (where?)<<IPv6 reference?? >>



4.1.4.  Order of commands

There are restrictions on the order in which these commands may be
used.

A session that is to will contain mail transactions MUST first be
initialized by the use of the HELO or EHLO command.  An SMTP server SHOULD
accept commands for non-mail transactions (e.g., VRFY or EXPN)
without this initialization.  

HELO or  

An EHLO commands command MAY be issued by a client later in the session.  If either
it is issued after the session begins, the SMTP server MUST clear all
buffers and reset the state exactly as if an a RSET command had been
issued.  In other words, the sequence of RSET followed immediately by
EHLO (or
HELO) is redundant, but not harmful other than in the performance cost
of executing unnecessary commands. 

If the HELO or EHLO commands are command is not acceptable to the SMTP server, 501, 500,
or 502 failure replies MUST be returned as appropriate.  The SMTP
server must stay in the same state after transmitting these replies as
that it was in before the HELO or EHLO were was received.

The SMTP client MUST ensure that the Domain domain parameter to the EHLO or
HELO
command is a valid principal host name (not a CNAME or MX name) for
its host.  If this is not possible (e.g., when the client's address
is dynamically assigned and the client does not have an obvious
name), an address literal SHOULD be substituted for the
Domain domain name
and supplemental information provided that will assist in identifying
the client.

An SMTP server MAY verify that the domain name parameter in the EHLO
or HELO
command actually corresponds to the IP address of the client.
However, the server MUST NOT refuse to accept a message if the
verification fails -- the information about verification failure is
for logging and tracing only.

The NOOP, HELP, EXPN, VRFY, and RSET commands can be used at any time
during a session, or without previously initializing a session.  SMTP
servers SHOULD process these normally (i.e., not return a 503 code)
even if no HELO or EHLO command has yet been received; clients SHOULD open a
session with HELO or EHLO before sending these commands. 

If the above these rules are followed, the example in RFC 821 that shows "550
access denied to you" in response to an EXPN command is essentially meaningless incorrect
unless a HELO or an EHLO command
preceeds precedes the EXPN or the denial of access is
based on the client's IP address. 

The MAIL command (or the obsolete SEND, SOML, or SAML commands)
begins a mail transaction.  Once started, a mail transaction consists
of one of the a transaction beginning commands, one or more RCPT commands, and a
DATA command, in that order.  A mail transaction may be aborted by
the RSET (or a new EHLO or HELO) EHLO) command.  There may be zero or more
transactions in a session.

If the transaction beginning command argument is not acceptable acceptable, a
501 failure reply MUST be returned and the SMTP server must stay in
the same state.  If the commands in a transaction are out of order to
the degree that they cannot be processed by the
server server, a 503 failure
reply MUST be returned and the SMTP server must stay in the same
state.

The last command in a session must be the QUIT command.  The QUIT
command can not cannot be used at any other time in a session, but SHOULD be
used by the client SMTP to request connection-closing connection closure, even if when no session-opening
session opening command has been was sent and accepted. 



4.1.5 Private-use commands

Commands

As specified in section 2.2.2, commands starting in "X" may be used
by bilateral agreement between the client (sending) and server
(receiving) SMTPs.  An SMTP server that does not recognize such a
command is expected to reply with "500 Command not recognized".  An
extended SMTP server MAY list the feature names associated with these
private commands in the response to the EHLO command. 

Commands sent or accepted by SMTP systems that do not start with "X"
MUST be documented in published RFCs and be at least
candidates for standardization. conform to the requirements of section ##2.2.2, above. 



4.2.  SMTP REPLIES

Replies to SMTP commands are devised serve to ensure the synchronization of
requests and actions in the process of mail transfer, transfer and to guarantee
that the SMTP client always knows the state of the SMTP server.
Every command must generate exactly one reply.

The details of the command-reply sequence are made explicit described in Section
##4.3 on Sequencing.

An SMTP reply consists of a three digit number (transmitted as three
alphanumeric characters) followed by some text.  The number is
intended for
use by automata to determine what state to enter next; the text is meant
for the human user.  It is generally intended that
the  The three digits contain enough encoded
information that the SMTP client need not examine the text and may
either discard it or pass it on to the user, as appropriate.
Exceptions are as noted elsewhere in the text,
in this document.  In particular,
the 220, 221, 251, 421, and 551 reply codes are associated with
message text that must be parsed and interpreted by machines.  In the
general case, the text may be receiver-dependent receiver dependent and context
dependent, so there are likely to be varying texts for each reply
code.  A discussion of the theory of reply codes is given
in Appendix E. insection
##4.2.1.  Formally, a reply is defined to be the sequence: a
three-digit code, SP, one line of text, and CRLF, or a multiline
reply (as defined in Appendix E). insection ##4.2.1).  Only the EXPN and HELP
commands are expected to result in multiline replies in normal
circumstances,
however however, multiline replies are allowed for any command.

An SMTP server SHOULD send only the reply codes listed in this
document.  An SMTP server SHOULD use the text shown in the examples
whenever appropriate.

A client SMTP MUST determine its actions only by the reply code, not
by the text (except for 251 and 551 and, if necessary, 220, 221, and
421 replies); in the general case, any text, including no text at all
(although senders SHOULD NOT send bare codes), must be MUSTbe acceptable.
The space (blank) following the reply code is considered part of the
text.  Whenever possible, a sender-SMTP SHOULD test only the first digit
(severity indication) of the reply code.

The list of codes that appears below must not be construed as
permanent.  While the addition of new codes should be a rare and
significant activity, with supplemental information in the textual
part of the response being preferred, new codes may from time to time be added as the
result of new Standards or Standards-track specifications.
Consequently, a sender-SMTP MUST be prepared to handle codes not
specified in this document and MUST do so by interpreting the first
digit (severity indication) only.



4.2.1.  REPLY CODE SEVERITIES AND THEORY


The three digits of the reply each have a special significance.  The
first digit denotes whether the response is good, bad or incomplete.
An unsophisticated SMTP client, or one that receives an unexpected
code, will be able to determine its next action (proceed as planned,
redo, retrench, etc.) by simply examining this first digit.  An SMTP client
that wants to know approximately what kind of error occurred (e.g.,
mail system error, command syntax error) may examine the second digit,
reserving the
digit.  The third digit and any supplemental information that may be
present is reserved for the finest gradation of information.

There are five values for the first digit of the reply code:

  1yz   Positive Preliminary reply

     The command has been accepted, but the requested action
     is being held in abeyance, pending confirmation of the
     information in this reply.  The SMTP client should send
     another command specifying whether to continue or abort
     the action.

        [Note: unextended SMTP does not have any commands that allow
		this type of reply, and so does not have the continue or abort
		commands.] 

  2yz   Positive Completion reply

     The requested action has been successfully completed.  A new
	 request may be initiated. 

  3yz   Positive Intermediate reply

     The command has been accepted, but the requested action is being
	 held in abeyance, pending receipt of further information.  The
	 SMTP client should send another command specifying this
	 information.  This reply is used in command sequence groups. groups
	 (i.e., in DATA).

  4yz   Transient Negative Completion reply

     The command was not accepted accepted, and the requested action did not
	 occur.  However, the error condition is temporary and the action
	 may be requested again.  The sender should return to the
	 beginning of the command sequence (if any). It is difficult to
	 assign a meaning to "transient" when two different sites
	 (receiver- and sender- SMTPs) must agree on the interpretation.
	 Each reply in this category might have a different time value,
	 but the SMTP client is encouraged to try again.  A rule of thumb
	 to determine if whether a reply fits into the 4yz or the 5yz
	 category (see below) is that replies are 4yz if they can be
	 repeated without any change in command form or in properties of
	 the sender or receiver.  (E.g., the command is repeated
	 identically and the receiver does not put up a new
	 implementation.) 

  5yz   Permanent Negative Completion reply

     The command was not accepted and the requested action did not
	 occur.  The SMTP client is discouraged from repeating the exact
	 request (in the same sequence).  Even some "permanent" error
	 conditions can be corrected, so the human user may want to
	 direct the SMTP client to reinitiate the command sequence by
	 direct action at some point in the future (e.g., after the
	 spelling has been changed, or the user has altered the account
	 status). 

The second digit encodes responses in specific categories:

  x0z   Syntax -- These replies refer to syntax errors,
        syntactically correct commands that don't fit any
        functional category, and unimplemented or superfluous
        commands.

  x1z   Information --  These are replies to requests for
        information, such as status or help.

  x2z   Connections -- These are replies referring to the
        transmission channel.

  x3z   Unspecified as yet.

  x4z   Unspecified as yet.

  x5z   Mail system -- These replies indicate the status of
        the receiver mail system vis-a-vis the requested
        transfer or other mail system action.

The third digit gives a finer gradation of meaning in each category
specified by the second digit.  The list of replies illustrates this.
Each reply text is recommended rather than mandatory, and may even
change according to the command with which it is associated.  On the
other hand, the reply codes must strictly follow the specifications
in this section.  Receiver implementations should not invent new
codes for slightly different situations from the ones described here,
but rather adapt codes already defined.

For example, a command such as NOOP NOOP, whose successful execution does
not offer the SMTP client any new information information, will return a 250
reply.  The response reply is 502 when the command requests an unimplemented
non-site-specific action.  A refinement of that is the 504 reply for
a command that is implemented, but that requests an unimplemented
parameter.

The reply text may be longer than a single line; in these cases the
complete text must be marked so the SMTP client knows when it can
stop reading the reply.  This requires a special format to indicate a
multiple line reply.

The format for multiline replies requires that every line, except the
last, begin with the reply code, followed immediately by a hyphen,
"-" (also known as minus), followed by text.  The last line will
begin with the reply code, followed immediately by <SP>, optionally
some text, and <CRLF>.  As noted above, clients SHOULD send the <SP>
if subsequent text is not sent, but servers MUST be prepared for it
to be omitted.

  For example:
                      123-First line
                      123-Second line
                      123-234 text beginning with numbers
                      123 The last line

In many cases the SMTP client then simply needs to search for the
reply code followed by <SP> at the beginning of a line, and ignore
all preceding lines.  In a few cases, there is important data for the
sender in the reply "text".  The sender will know be able to identify
these cases from the current context.


4.2.2.  REPLY CODES BY FUNCTION GROUPS

   500 Syntax error, command unrecognized
      [This may include errors such as command line too long]
   501 Syntax error in parameters or arguments
   502 Command not implemented  (see section ##4.2.3)
   503 Bad sequence of commands
   504 Command parameter not implemented

   211 System status, or system help reply
   214 Help message
      [Information on how to use the receiver or the meaning of a
      particular non-standard command; this reply is useful only
      to the human user]

   220 <domain> Service ready
   221 <domain> Service closing transmission channel
   421 <domain> Service not available,
       closing transmission channel
      [This may be a reply to any command if the service knows it
      must shut down]

   250 Requested mail action okay, completed
   251 User not local; will forward to <forward-path>
      [See section ##3.4]
   252 Cannot VRFY user, but will accept message and attempt 
       delivery
      [See section ##3.5.3]
   450 Requested mail action not taken: mailbox unavailable
      [E.g., mailbox busy]
   550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable
      [E.g., mailbox not found, no access, or command rejected
      for policy reasons]
   451 Requested action aborted: error in processing
   551 User not local; please try <forward-path>
      [See section ##3.4]
   452 Requested action not taken: insufficient system storage
   552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation
   553 Requested action not taken: mailbox name not allowed
      [E.g., mailbox syntax incorrect]
   354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>
   554 Transaction failed [Or, in the case of a connection-opening
       response, "No SMTP service here"]


4.2.3.  NUMERIC ORDER LIST OF REPLY CODES

   211 System status, or system help reply
   214 Help message
      [Information on how to use the receiver or the meaning of a
      particular non-standard command; this reply is useful only
      to the human user]
   220 <domain> Service ready
   221 <domain> Service closing transmission channel
   250 Requested mail action okay, completed
   251 User not local; will forward to <forward-path>
      [See section ##3.4]
   252 Cannot VRFY user, but will accept message and attempt 
      delivery
      [See section ##3.5.3]

   354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>

   421 <domain> Service not available,
       closing transmission channel
      [This may be a reply to any command if the service knows it
      must shut down]
   450 Requested mail action not taken: mailbox unavailable
      [E.g., mailbox busy]
   451 Requested action aborted: local error in processing
   452 Requested action not taken: insufficient system storage

   500 Syntax error, command unrecognized
      [This may include errors such as command line too long]
   501 Syntax error in parameters or arguments
   502 Command not implemented
   503 Bad sequence of commands
   504 Command parameter not implemented
   550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable
      [E.g., mailbox not found, no access, or command rejected
      for policy reasons]
   551 User not local; please try <forward-path>
      [See section ##3.4]
   552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation
   553 Requested action not taken: mailbox name not allowed
      [E.g., mailbox syntax incorrect]
   554 Transaction failed  [Or, in the case of a connection-opening
       response, "No SMTP service here"]
         

4.2.4.  Reply code 502

Questions have been raised as to when reply code 502 (Command not
implemented) should be returned in preference to other codes.  502
SHOULD be used when the command is actually recognized by the SMTP
server, but not implemented.  If the command is not recognized, code
500 SHOULD be returned.  Extended SMTP systems MUST NOT list
capabilities in response to EHLO for which they will return 502 (or
500) replies.


4.2.5  Reply codes after DATA and the subsequent CRLF.CRLF. <CRLF>.<CRLF>.

When an SMTP server returns a positive completion status (2yz code)
after the DATA command is completed with CRLF.CRLF, <CRLF>.<CRLF>, it accepts responsibity
responsibility for:

+

 o delivering the message (if the recipient mailbox exists), or 

+ 

 o if attempts to deliver the message fail due to transient
   conditions, retrying delivery some reasonable number of times
   at intervals as specified in section ##4.2.6.

+

 o if attempts to deliver the message fail due to permanent
   conditions, or if repeated attempts to deliver the message fail
   due to transient conditions, returning appropriate notification to
   the sender of the original message (using the address in the SMTP
   MAIL FROM command). 


When an SMTP server returns a transient error completion status (4yz)
code after the DATA command is completed with CRLF.CRLF, <CRLF>.<CRLF>, it MUST
NOT make any further attempt to deliver that message.  The SMTP
client retains responsibility for delivery of that message and may
either return it to the user or requeue it for a subsequent attempt
(see section ##4.5.4.1).  The sending user should be able to
interpret the return of a transient or permanent failure status as a
non-delivery indication.



4.3.  SEQUENCING OF COMMANDS AND REPLIES

4.3.1 Sequencing overview

The communication between the sender and receiver is intended to be an alternating
dialogue, controlled by the sender.  As such, the sender issues a
command and the receiver responds with a reply.  Unless other
arrangements are negotiated through service extensions, the sender
must wait for this response before sending further commands.

One important reply is the connection greeting.  Normally, a receiver
will send a 220 "Service ready" reply when the connection is
completed.  The sender should wait for this greeting message before
sending any commands.

Note: all the greeting type greeting-type replies have the official name (i.e., the
fully-qualified primary domain name) of the server host as the first
word following the reply code.  Sometimes the host will have no
meaningful name.  See ##4.1.3 for a discussion of alternatives in
these situations.

      For example,

         220 ISIF.USC.EDU Service ready
      or

         220 Loser.bogus.com LOSER.BOGUS.COM Trashmail v 6.1.2 Service ready

The table below lists alternative success and failure replies for
each command.  These SHOULD be strictly adhered to; a receiver may
substitute text in the replies, but the meaning and action implied by
the code numbers and by the specific command reply sequence cannot be
altered.

4.3.2 Command-Reply Sequences

Each command is listed with its usual possible replies.  The prefixes
used before the possible replies are "P" for preliminary (not used in
SMTP), "I" for intermediate, "S" for success, "F" for failure, and
"E" for error.  The 421 reply (service not available, closing
transmission channel) may be given to any command if the
SMTP-receiver SMTP
receiver knows it must shut down.  Since some servers may generate
other replies under special circumstances, and to allow for future
extension, SMTP clients SHOULD, when possible, interpret only the
first digit of the reply and MUST be prepared to deal with
unrecognized reply codes by interpreting the first digit only.  SMTP
servers MUST NOT transmit reply codes to an SMTP client that are
other than three digits or that do not start in a digit between 2 and
5 inclusive.

      CONNECTION ESTABLISHMENT
         S: 220
         F: 421, 554
      EHLO             (or HELO)
         S: 250
         E: 500*, 501, 504, 421, 550
      MAIL
         S: 250
         F: 552, 451, 452
         E: 500*, 501, 421, 550, 553
      RCPT
         S: 250, 251 (but see section ##3.4 for discussion of 251)
         F: 550, 551, 552, 553, 450, 451, 452
         E: 500*, 501, 503, 421, 550
      DATA
         I: 354 -> data -> S: 250
                           F: 552, 554, 451, 452
         F: 451, 554
         E: 500*, 501, 503, 421
      RSET
         S: 250
         E: 500*, 501, 504, 421
      SEND
         S: 250
         F: 552, 451, 452
         E: 500, 501, 502, 421
      SOML
         S: 250
         F: 552, 451, 452
         E: 500, 501, 502, 421
      SAML
         S: 250
         F: 552, 451, 452
         E: 500, 501, 502, 421
      VRFY
         S: 250, 251, 252
         F: 550, 551, 553
         E: 500*, 501, 502, 504, 421
      EXPN
         S: 250, 252
         F: 550
         E: 500, 501, 502, 504, 421
      HELP
         S: 211, 214
         E: 500, 501, 502, 504, 421
      NOOP
         S: 250
         E: 500*, 421
      QUIT
         S: 221
         E: 500*
      TURN
         S: 250
         F: 502
         E: 500, 503

      * Since support of this command is required, returning
        this reply code as part of an "unrecognized command"
        status places an implementation out of conformance with
        this specification.



4.4 Trace information

When an SMTP server receives a message for delivery or further
processing, it MUST insert trace ("time stamp" or "Received")
information at the beginning of the message content, as discussed
under the DATA command in section ##4.1.1.4.

This line must be structured as follows:

   *    The FROM field SHOULD contain both (1) the name of the
        source host as presented in the EHLO or HELO command and (2) an
		address literal containing the IP address of the source,
        determined from the TCP connection.

   *    The ID field MAY contain an "@" as suggested in RFC-822,
        but this is not required.

   *    The FOR field MAY contain a list of <path> entries when
        multiple RCPT commands have been given.

An Internet mail program MUST NOT change a Received: line that was
previously added to the message header.  SMTP servers MUST prepend
Received lines to messages; they MUST NOT change the order of
existing lines or insert Received lines in any other location. 

As the Internet grows, comparability of Received fields is important
for detecting problems, especially slow relays.  SMTP servers that
create Received fields SHOULD use explicit offsets in the dates
(e.g., -0800), rather than time zone names of any type.  Local time
(with an offset) is preferred to UT when feasible.  If it is desired to also use a time zone name,
name is used, it should be included in a commment. comment.

When the delivery SMTP server makes the "final delivery" of a
message, it inserts a return-path line at the beginning of the mail
data.  This use of return-path is required; mail systems MUST support
it.  The return path return-path line preserves the information in the
<reverse-path> from the MAIL command.  Here, final delivery means the
message leaves has left the SMTP world.  Normally, this would mean it has had
been delivered to the destination user or an associated mail drop,
but in some cases it may be further processed and transmitted by
another mail system.

It is possible for the mailbox in the return path to be different
from the actual sender's mailbox, for example example, if error responses are
to be delivered a special error handling mailbox rather than to that of the
message sender.  When mailing lists are involved, this arrangement is
common and useful as a means of directing errors to the list
maintainer rather than the message originator.

The text above implies that the final mail data will begin with a
return path line, followed by one or more time stamp lines.  These
lines will be followed by the mail data headers and body [RFC822].  See Example ##8. 

It is sometimes difficult for an SMTP server to determine whether or
not it is making final delivery since forwarding or other operations
may occur after the message is accepted for delivery.  Consequently,
any further (forwarding, gateway, or relay) systems MAY remove the
return path and rebuild the MAIL FROM command as needed to ensure
that exactly one such line appears in a delivered message.  

A message-originating SMTP system SHOULD NOT send a message that
already contains a Return-path header.  SMTP servers performing a
relay function MUST NOT inspect the message data data, and especially not
to the extent needed to determine if Return-path headers are present.
SMTP servers making final delivery MAY remove Return-path headers
before adding their own. 

The primary intent purpose of the Return-path is that it designates to designate the address to
which messages indicating non-delivery or other mail system failures at
are to be sent.  For this to be unambigious, exactly one return path
should be present when the message is delivered.  Systems using RFC
822 syntax with non-SMTP transports SHOULD preserve the intent of having designate an unambiguous
address, associated with the transport envelope, to which to
send error
reports (e.g., non-delivery messages). messages) should be sent.

   Historical note: Text in RFC 822 that appears to contradict the
   use of Return-path (or the envelope MAIL FROM address) as the
   destination of for error messages is not applicable on the Internet.
   The MAIL FROM address (as copied into the Return-path) MUST be
   used as the target of any mail containing delivery error messages.
   << Probably should take this out if [MSGFMT] adequately
   clarifies that point --Ed.>>

In particular,

(i) a gateway from SMTP->elsewhere SHOULD insert a return-path
header, unless it is known that the "elsewhere" transport also uses
Internet domain addresses and maintains the envelope sender address
separately.

(ii)  a gateway from elsewhere->SMTP SHOULD delete any
return-path header present in the message, and either copy
that information to the SMTP envelope or combine it with
information present in the envelope of the other transport
system to construct the MAIL FROM part of the SMTP envelope.


Special mention is needed of the response and further action required
when



The server must give special treatment to cases in which the
processing following the end of mail data indication is only
partially successful.  This could arise if happen if, after accepting several
recipients and the mail data, the SMTP server finds that the mail
data can could be successfully delivered to some some, but not all, of the recipients, but it
cannot be to others (for example, due to mailbox space allocation
problems).
recipients.  In such a situation, cases, the response to the DATA command must be
an OK reply.  But,  However, the SMTP server must compose and send an
"undeliverable mail" notification message to the originator of the
message.  Either a A single notification which lists listing all of the
recipients that failed to get the message, recipients
or separate notification messages must be sent for each failed recipient (see Example 7).
recipient.  For economy of processing by the sender, the former is
preferred when possible.  All undeliverable mail notification
messages are sent using the MAIL command (even if they result from
processing the obsolete SEND, SOML, or SAML commands) and use a null
return path as discussed in section ##3.7.

<<<>>> The

 <<The following section is incomplete in this draft <<>> >>>

The time stamp line and the return path line are formally defined as
follows:

<return-path-line> ::= "Return-Path:" <SP><reverse-path><CRLF>

<time-stamp-line> ::= "Received:" <SP> <stamp> <CRLF>

<stamp> ::= <from-domain> <by-domain> <opt-info> ";"
          <daytime>

<from-domain> ::= "FROM" <SP> <domain> <SP>

<by-domain> ::= "BY" <SP> <domain> <SP>

<opt-info> ::= [<via>] [<with>] [<id>] [<for>]

<via> ::= "VIA" <SP> <link> <SP>

<with> ::= "WITH" <SP> <protocol> <SP>

<id> ::= "ID" <SP> <string> <SP>

<for> ::= "FOR" <SP> <path> <SP>

<<>>FOR

<< FOR and <link> need to be nailed down. down.>>

   <link> ::= The standard names for links are registered with
             the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).

   <protocol> ::= The standard names for protocols are
             registered with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
             (IANA). 

   <daytime> ::= <SP> <date> <SP> <time>

   Date ::= Dd SP Mon SP YYYY

       Note that the earlier form, which permits two-digit years, has
       been deprecated.  SMTP systems MUST use four-digit years.

   <time> ::= <hh> ":" <mm> ":" <ss> <SP> <zone>

   Dd ::= the one or two decimal integer day of the month in
             the range 1 to 31.

   Mon ::= "JAN" | "FEB" | "MAR" | "APR" | "MAY" | "JUN" |
             "JUL" | "AUG" | "SEP" | "OCT" | "NOV" | "DEC"

   YYYY ::= the four decimal integer year in the range 0000 to
             9999. 

   <hh> ::= the two decimal integer hour of the day in the
             range 00 to 24.

   <mm> ::= the two decimal integer minute of the hour in the
             range 00 to 59.

   <ss> ::= the two decimal integer second of the minute in the
             range 00 to 59.

   <zone> ::= A four-digit four digit, signed time zone offset, such as -0600 for
             US Eastern Standard Time.  This may be supplemented by a
             time zone name in parentheses, e.g., "-0800 (PDT)".  See
             ##___ for additional discussion.

          Note that there is no default; time zone information
          is required and MUST be supplied.




-------------------------------------------------------------
|
|  Example of Return Path and Received Time Stamps
|
| Return-Path: <@GHI.ARPA,@DEF.ARPA,@ABC.ARPA:JOE@ABC.ARPA>   
| Received: from GHI.ARPA by JKL.ARPA ; 27 Oct 81 15:27:39 -0800
| Received: from DEF.ARPA by GHI.ARPA ; 27 Oct 81 15:15:13 -0800
| Received: from ABC.ARPA by DEF.ARPA ; 27 Oct 81 15:01:59 -0800
| Date: 27 Oct 81 15:01:01 -0800 (PST)
| From: JOE@ABC.ARPA                                          
| Subject: Improved Mailing System Installed                  
| To: SAM@JKL.ARPA                                            
|
| This is to inform you that ...                              
|
|                      Example 8
|
-------------------------------------------------------------





4.5.  DETAILS

4.5.1.  MINIMUM IMPLEMENTATION

In order to make SMTP workable, the following minimum
implementation is required for all receivers:

   COMMANDS -- HELO
               VRFY
               MAIL
               RCPT
               DATA
               RSET
               NOOP
               QUIT

Any system that includes an SMTP server that supports supporting mail relaying
or delivery, i.e., the RCPT command, MUST support the reserved
mailbox "Postmaster" "postmaster" as a case-insensitive local name.  E.g., the
Postmaster This
postmaster address is not strictly necessary if the server always
returns 554 on connection opening as (as described in section ##3.1.  This ##3.1).  The
requirement to accept mail for Postmaster postmaster implies that RCPT TO
commands which specify a mailbox for Postmaster postmaster at any of the domains
for which the SMTP server provides mail service service, as well as the
special case of "RCPT TO:<Postmaster>" (with no domain specification) specification),
MUST be supported.

EHLO SHOULD be supported if possible.



4.5.2.  TRANSPARENCY

Without some provision for data transparency transparency, the character
sequence "<CRLF>.<CRLF>" ends the mail text and cannot be sent
by the user.  In general, users are not aware of such
"forbidden" sequences.  To allow all user composed text to be
transmitted transparently transparently, the following procedures are used.

   1. Before sending a line of mail text text, the SMTP client checks
   the first character of the line.  If it is a period, one
   additional period is inserted at the beginning of the line.

   2. When a line of mail text is received by the SMTP server server,
   it checks the line.  If the line is composed of a single
   period period,
   it is treated as the end of mail. mail indicator.  If the first
   character is a period and there are other characters on the line,
   the first character is deleted.

The mail data may contain any of the 128 ASCII characters.  All
characters are to be delivered to the recipient's mailbox mailbox, including
format effectors and other control characters.  If the transmission
channel provides an 8-bit byte (octets) data stream, the 7-bit ASCII
codes are transmitted right justified in the octets octets, with the high
order bits cleared to zero.  See
##___ ##3.7 for special treatment of these
conditions in SMTP systems serving a relay function.

In some systems it may be necessary to transform the data as it is
received and stored.  This may be necessary for hosts that use a
different character set than ASCII as their local character set, set or that
store data in records rather than strings.  If such transforms transformationss
are necessary, they must be reversible -- especially if such transforms
transformationss are applied to mail being relayed.


4.5.3.  SIZES AND TIMEOUTS

There are several objects that have required minimum maximum minimum/maximum sizes.
That is, every
Every implementation must be able to receive objects of at least
these sizes, but SHOULD NOT send objects sizes.  Objects larger than these
sizes.  In particular, note that, in some cases, the sizes given may
not SHOULD be sufficient avoided when
possible.  However, some Internet mail constructs, e.g., encoded
X.400 addresses [RFC-X400] will often require larger objects: clients
MAY attempt to accomodate important practices and protocols.
For example, the length specified transmit these, but MUST be prepared for a "user name" (local-part) may
not be sufficient server to accomodate an encoded X.400 address [RFC-X400].
reject them if they cannot be handled by it.  


****************************************************
*                                                  *
*  TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE, IMPLEMENTATION  *
*  TECHNIQUES WHICH IMPOSE NO LIMITS ON THE LENGTH *
*  OF THESE OBJECTS SHOULD BE USED.                *
*                                                  *
****************************************************

local-part

   The maximum total length of a user name or other local-part

is 64 characters.
<<>>>

domain

   The maximum total length of a domain name or number is 255
   characters.

path

   The maximum total length of a reverse-path or
   forward-path is 256 characters (including the punctuation
   and element separators).

command line

   The maximum total length of a command line including the
   command word and the <CRLF> is 512 characters.

reply line

   The maximum total length of a reply line including the reply code
   and the <CRLF> is 512 characters.  More information may be
   conveyed through multiple-line replies. 


text line

   The maximum total length of a text line including the <CRLF> is
   1000 characters (but not (not counting the leading dot duplicated for
   transparency).  This number may be increased by the use of SMTP
   Service Extensions. 

message content

   The maximum total length of a message content (including any
   message headers as well as the message body) MUST BE at least 64K 
   octets.  Especially since Since the introduction of multimedia mail [RFC-MIME],
   message lengths on the Internet have grown dramatically, and
   message size restrictions should be avoided if at all possible.
   SMTP server systems that must impose restrictions SHOULD implement
   the "SIZE" service extension
   ([RFC-SIZE]) ([RFC-SIZE]), and SMTP client systems
   that will send large messages SHOULD utilize it when possible.

recipients buffer

   The minimum total number of recipients that must be buffered is
   100 recipients.   I.e., rejection Rejection of messages (for excessive recipients)
   with fewer than 100 RCPT TO commands is a violation of this
   specification.  The general principle that relaying SMTP servers
   MUST NOT, and delivery SMTP servers SHOULD NOT, perform validation
   tests on message headers suggests that rejecting a message based
   on the total number of recipients shown in header fields is to be
   discouraged.  A server which imposes a limit on the number of
   recipients MUST behave in an orderly fashion, e.g., reject
   additional addresses over its limit rather than silently
   discarding addresses previously accepted.  A client which that needs to
   deliver a message that would contain containing over 100 RCPT TO commands SHOULD be
   prepared to transmit it in 100-recipient "chunks" if the server
   declines to accept more recipients than that 100 recipients in a single message. 


****************************************************
*                                                  *
*  TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE, IMPLEMENTATION  *
*  TECHNIQUES WHICH IMPOSE NO LIMITS ON THE LENGTH *
*  OF THESE OBJECTS SHOULD BE USED.                *
*                                                  *
****************************************************

Errors due to exceeding these limits may be reported by using the
reply codes, for example:

500 Line too long.

501 Path too long

552 Too many recipients.

<<>>

<< Note in draft: Should this be 452?<<>> 452?>>

552 Too much mail data.


An SMTP client MUST provide a timeout mechanism.  It SHOULD MUST use
per-command timeouts rather than somehow trying to time the entire
mail transacton. transaction.  Timeouts SHOULD be easily reconfigurable,
preferably without recompiling the SMTP code.  To implement this, a
timer is set for each SMTP command and for each buffer of the data
transfer.  The latter means that the overall timeout is inherently
proportional to the size of the message.

Based on extensive experience with busy mail-relay hosts, the minimum
per-command timeout values SHOULD be as follows: 

o    Initial 220 Message: 5 minutes

     An SMTP client process needs to distinguish between a failed TCP
	 connection and a delay in receiving the initial 220 greeting
	 message.  Many SMTP servers will accept a TCP connection but delay
	 delivery of the 220 message until their system load will permit permits more
	 mail to be processed. 

o    MAIL Command: 5 minutes


o    RCPT Command: 5 minutes

     A longer timeout would be is required if processing of mailing lists and
	 aliases were is not deferred until after the message was accepted.

o    DATA Initiation: 2 minutes

     This is while awaiting the "354 Start Input" reply to a
     DATA command.

o    Data Block: 3 minutes

     This is while awaiting the completion of each TCP SEND call
	 transmitting a chunk of data. 

o    DATA Termination: 10 minutes.

     This is while awaiting the "250 OK" reply. When the receiver
	 gets the final period terminating the message data, it typically
	 performs processing to deliver the message to a user mailbox.  A
	 spurious timeout at this point would be very wasteful and would
	 typically result in delivery of multiple copies of the message,
	 since it has been successfully sent and the server has accepted
	 responsibility for delivery.  See section ##6.1 for additional
	 discussion. 

An SMTP server SHOULD have a timeout of at least 5 minutes while it
is awaiting the next command from the sender.


4.5.4   Queuing Strategies

The common structure of a host SMTP implementation includes user
mailboxes, one or more areas for queueing messages in transit, and
one or more daemon processes for sending and receiving mail.  The
exact structure will vary depending on the needs of the users on the
host and the number and size of mailing lists supported by the host.
We describe several optimizations that have proved helpful,
particularly for mailers supporting high traffic levels.

Any queueing strategy MUST include:

o    Timeouts on all activities on a per-command basis.

o    Never sending error messages in response to error messages.


4.5.4.1 Sending Strategy

The general model of for an SMTP client is one or more processes that
periodically attempt to transmit outgoing mail.  In a typical system,
the program that composes a message has some method for requesting
immediate attention for a new piece of outgoing mail, while mail that
cannot be transmitted immediately MUST be queued and periodically
retried by the sender.  A mail queue entry will include not only the
message itself but also the envelope information.

The sender MUST delay retrying a particular destination after one
attempt has failed.  In general, the retry interval SHOULD be at
least 30 minutes; however, more sophisticated and variable strategies
will be beneficial when the SMTP client can determine the reason for
non- delivery.

Retries continue until the message is transmitted or the sender gives
up; the give-up time generally needs to be at least 4-5 days.  The
parameters to the retry algorithm MUST be configurable.

A client SHOULD keep a list of hosts it cannot reach and
corresponding connection timeouts, rather than just retrying queued
mail items.


Experience suggests that failures are typically transient (the target
system or its connection has crashed), favoring a policy of two
connection attempts in the first hour the message is in the queue,
and then backing off to once one every two or three hours.

The SMTP client can shorten the queueing queuing delay by in cooperation with the
SMTP server.  In particular,  For example, if mail is received from a particular
address, it is good evidence likely that any mail queued for that host can now be sent.
Application of this principle may, in many cases, eliminate the
requirement for an explicit "send queues now" function such as that
discussed in [RFC-ETRN].

The strategy may be further modified as a result of multiple
addresses per host (see below), below) to optimize delivery time vs.
resource usage.

An SMTP client may have a large queue of messages for each
unavailable destination host.  If it retried all of these messages were retried
in every retry cycle, there would be excessive Internet overhead and
the daemon sending system would be blocked for a long period.  Note that an
SMTP client can generally determine that a delivery attempt has
failed only after a timeout of several minutes; minutes and even a one minute one-minute
timeout per connection will result in a very large delay if it is retries
are repeated for dozens dozens, or even hundreds hundreds, of queued messages to the
same host.

At the same time, SMTP clients should use great care about in caching
negative responses from servers.  In an extreme case, if EHLO is
issued multiple times during the same SMTP connection, different
answers may be returned by the server. More significantly, 5yz
responses to MAIL FROM MUST NOT be cached.

When the same message is to will be delivered to several users on the same
host, only one copy of the message SHOULD be transmitted.  That is,
the SMTP client SHOULD use the command sequence: RCPT, RCPT,... RCPT,
DATA instead of the sequence: RCPT, DATA, ..., RCPT, DATA, ... RCPT,
DATA.  Implementation of this efficiency feature is strongly urged.
encouraged.

Similarly, to achieve timely delivery, the SMTP client MAY support
multiple concurrent outgoing mail transactions to achieve timely delivery. transactions.  However, some limit
may be appropriate to protect the host from devoting all its
resources to mail.

4.5.4.2  Receiving strategy

The SMTP server SHOULD attempt to keep a pending listen on the SMTP
port at all times.  This will require requires the support of multiple incoming
TCP connections for SMTP.  Some limit MAY be imposed.

As discussed above, when the SMTP server receives mail from a
particular host address, it could notify the SMTP client to retry any
mail pending for that host address.



5. Address resolution and mail handling

Once an SMTP client lexically identifies a domain to which mail is to will
be delivered for processing (as described in sections ##3.6 and
##3.7), a DNS lookup is performed to resolve that the domain name (see
[RFC-DNS]).  The lookup first attempts to locate an MX record
associated with that the name.  If a CNAME record is found instead, the
resulting name is processed as if it were the initial name.  If no no MX
records are found, but an A RR is found, the A RR is treated as if it
was associated with an implicit MX RR, with a preference of 0,
pointing to that host.  If one or more MX RRs are found for a given
name, SMTP systems MUST NOT utilize an A RRs associated with that
name unless they are located using the MX RRs; i.e., the "implicit
MX" rule above applies only if there are no MX records present.  If
MX records are found, present, but an A RR is found, the A RR is treated none of them are usable, this situation
MUST be reported as if it
was associated with an implicit MX RR, with a preference of 0,
pointing to that host. error.

When the lookup succeeds, the mapping can result in a list of
alternative delivery addresses rather than a single address, because
of (a) multiple MX records, (b) multihoming, or both.  To provide
reliable mail transmission, the SMTP client MUST be able to try (and
retry) each of the relevant addresses in this list in order, until a
delivery attempt succeeds.  However, there MAY also be a configurable
limit on the number of alternate addresses that can be tried.  In any
case, a host SHOULD try at least two addresses.

The following information is to be used to rank the host addresses:

 (1)  Multiple MX Records -- these contain a preference indication
    that should be used in sorting (see below).  Lower numbers are
	more preferred than higher ones.  If there are multiple
	destinations with the same preference and there is no clear
	reason to favor one (e.g., by recognition of an easily-reached
	address), then the sender-SMTP SHOULD pick one at random to
	spread the load across multiple mail exchangers for a specific
	organization.

 (2)  Multihomed host -- The destination host (perhaps taken from the
    preferred MX record) may be multihomed, in which case the domain
	name resolver will return a list of alternative IP addresses.  It
	is the responsibility of the domain name resolver interface to
	have ordered this list by decreasing preference, preference if necessary, and
	SMTP MUST try them in the order presented.

    Although the capability to try multiple alternative addresses is
	required, there may be circumstances where specific installations may want to limit or disable the
	use of alternative addresses.  The question of whether a sender
	should attempt retries using the different addresses of a
	multihomed host has been controversial.  The main argument for
	using the multiple addresses is that it maximizes the probability
	of timely delivery, and indeed sometimes the probability of any
	delivery; the counterargument is that it may result in
	unnecessary resource use. 

    Note that resource use is also strongly determined by the sending
	strategy discussed in Section #4.5.4.1. 

If a host receives a message with a destination for which it is a
designated Mail eXchanger, it MAY relay the message, potentially message (potentially
after having rewritten the addresses, addresses), make final delivery of the
message, or hand it off using some mechanism outside the
SMTP-provided transport environment.

If it determines that it should relay the message without rewriting
the address, it must sort the MX records to determine candidates for
delivery. The records are first ordered by preference, with the
lowest-numbered records being most preferred.  The relay host must
then inspect the list for any of the names or addresses by which it
might be known in mail transactions.  If a matching record is found,
all records at that preference level and higher-numbered ones MUST BE
discarded from consideration.  If there are no records left at that
point, it is an error condition condition, and the message must be returned as
undeliverable.  If records do remain, they should be tried, best
preference first, as described above.


6. Problem detection and handling

6.1 Reliable delivery and replies by email

When the receiver-SMTP accepts a piece of mail (by sending a "250 OK"
message in response to DATA), it is accepting responsibility for
delivering or relaying the message.  It must take this responsibility
seriously, i.e., it MUST NOT lose the message for frivolous reasons,
e.g., because the host later crashes or because of a predictable
resource shortage.

If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message, the
receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification message.  This
notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>") reverse path in the
envelope.  The recipient of this notification SHOULD be the address
from the envelope return path (or the Return-Path: line).  However,
if this address is null ("<>"), the receiver-SMTP MUST NOT send a
notification.  If the address is an explicit source route, it MUST be
stripped down to its final hop.

DISCUSSION:
     For example, suppose that an error notification must be
     sent for a message that arrived with:
     "MAIL FROM:<@a,@b:user@d>".
          MAIL FROM:<@a,@b:user@d>
     The notification message should be sent to: "RCPT TO:<user@d>". using: 
          RCPT TO:<user@d>

Some delivery failures after the message is accepted by SMTP will be
unavoidable.  For example, it may be impossible for the receiving
SMTP server to validate all the delivery addresses in RCPT command(s)
due to a "soft" domain system error, because the target is a mailing
list (see earlier discussion of RCPT), or because the server is
acting as a relay and has no immediate access to the delivering
system.

To avoid receiving duplicate messages as the result of timeouts, a
receiver-SMTP MUST seek to minimize the time required to respond to
the final "CRLF.CRLF" that ends a message transfer. <CRLF>.<CRLF> end of data indicator.  See RFC-1047
[RFC1047] for a discussion of this problem.


6.2 Loop detection

Simple counting of the number of Received lines in a message has
proven to be an effective, although rarely optimal, method of
detecting loops in mail systems.  SMTP servers that use using this technique
should use a large rejection threshold, normally at least 100
Received entries.  Whatever mechanisms are used, servers MUST contain
provisions for detecting and stopping trivial loops.


6.3 Compensating for irregularities

Unfortunately, variations, creative interpretations, and outright
violations of Internet mail protocols do occur; some would suggest
that they occur quite frequently.  The debate as to whether a
well-behaved SMTP receiver or relay should reject a malformed
message, attempt to pass it on unchanged, or attempt to repair it to
increase the odds of successful delivery (or subsequent reply) began
almost with the dawn of structured network mail and shows no signs of
abating.  Advocates of rejection claim that attempted repairs are
rarely completely adequate and that rejection of bad messages is the
only way to get the offending software repaired.  Advocates of
"repair" or "deliver no matter what" argue that users prefer that
mail go through it if at all possible and that there are significant
market pressures in that direction.  In practice, these market
pressures may be more important to particular vendors then than strict
conformance to the standards, regardless of the preference of the
actual developers.

The problems associated with ill-formed messages were exacerbated by
the introduction of the split-UA mail reading protocols [RFC-POP2,
RFC-POP3, RFC-IMAP2, RFC-PCMAIL].  These
protocols, which facilitate the use of a client machine,
separate from the one containing the mail-receiving SMTP server,
to actually process incoming mail. RFC-PCMAIL These arrangements protocols have encouraged the
use of SMTP as a posting protocol protocol, and SMTP servers as relay systems
for these client hosts, which hosts (which are often only intermittently connected
to the Internet. Internet).  Historically, many of those client machines lacked
some of the mechanisms and information assumed by SMTP (and indeed,
by the mail format protocol [RFC-822]).  Some could not keep adequate
track of time; others had no concept of timezones; time zones; still others
could not identify their own names or addresses; and, of course, none
could satisfy the assumptions that underlay RFC-822's conception of
authenticated addresses.

In response to these weak SMTP clients, many SMTP systems have taken
on the responsibility to now
complete messages that are delivered to them in incomplete or
incorrect form.  This strategy is generally considered to be appropriate
when the server can identify or authenticate the client client, and there
are prior agreements between them.  By contrast, there is at best
great concern about fixes applied by a relay or delivery SMTP server
that has little or no knowledge of the user or client machine.

The following changes to a message being processed MAY be applied by
an originating SMTP server, or one used as the target of SMTP as an
initial posting protocol, when necessary.  The less information the
server has about the client, the less likely these changes are to be
correct and the more caution and conservatism should be applied in when
considering whether or not to perform fixes and how.  These changes
MUST NOT be applied by an SMTP server that provides a simple an intermediate
relay function.

    - Addition of a message-id field when none appears

    - Addition of a date, time or timezone time zone when none appears

    - Correction of addresses to proper FQDN format

In all cases, properly-operating clients that supply supplying correct
information are preferred to corrections by the SMTP server.  And,
equally in In all
cases, documentation of actions performed by the servers (in trace
fields and/or header comments) is strongly encouraged.


7.  Security Considerations

7.1 Mail security and spoofing

SMTP mail is inherently insecure in that it is feasible for even
fairly casual users to negotiate directly with receiving and relaying
SMTP servers and create messages that will trick a naive recipient
into believing that they came from somewhere else.  Constructing such
a message so that the "spoofed" behavior cannot be detected by an
expert is somewhat more difficult, but not sufficiently so as to be a
deterrent to someone who is determined and knowledgeable.
Consequently, as knowledge of Internet mail increases, so does the
knowledge that SMTP mail inherently cannot be authenticated, or
integrity checks provided, at the transport level.

Real mail security lies only in end-to-end methods involving the
message bodies, e.g., those that can be provided in the MOSS
framework [RFC-MOSS].

A corollary to this is that efforts

Efforts to make it more difficult for users to set envelope MAIL FROM
and header "From" fields to point to valid addresses other than their
own are largely misguided: they do not prevent any would-be mail spoofer from
doing so, but they frustrate legitimate applications in
which mail is sent by one user on behalf of another or in which error
(or normal) replies should be directed to a special address.  On
the other hand, systems (Systems
that provide convenient ways for users to alter these fields on a
per-message basis should attempt to establish a primary and permanent
mailbox address for the user so that Sender fields within the message
data can be generated
sensibly. sensibly.)


This specification does not further address the authentication issues
associated with SMTP other than to advocate that useful functionality
not be disabled in the hope of providing some small margin of
protection against an ignorant user who is trying to fake mail.



7.2 "Blind" copies.

Addresses that do not appear in the message headers may appear in the
RCPT TO commands to an SMTP server
that do not appear in the message headers for a number of reasons.  The two
most common of these involve the use of a mailing address as a "list exploder"
-- a single address that resolves into multiple addresses -- and the
appearance of "blind copies".  In order to avoid defeating some of
the purpose of these mechanisms, SMTP clients and servers SHOULD NOT
copy the full set of RCPT TO command arguments into the headers, even
as informational or private-extension headers.  Since this rule is
often violated in practice, and cannot be enforced, sending SMTP
systems that are aware of "bcc" use MAY find it helpful to send each
blind copy as a separate message transaction containing only a single
RCPT TO command.

More generally, while there are often similarities, there

There is no inherent relationship between either "reverse" (MAIL
FROM, SAML FROM, etc.) or "forward" (RCPT TO) addresses in the SMTP
transaction ("envelope") and the addresses in the headers.  Receiving
systems SHOULD NOT attempt to deduce such relationships and use them
to alter the headers of the message for delivery.  The popular
"Apparently-to" header is a violation of this principle and SHOULD
NOT be used.


7.3  VRFY, EXPN, and security.

As discussed in section ##3.5, individual sites may want to disable
one or both of VRFY or EXPN for security reasons.  As a corollary to the
above, implementations that permit this MUST NOT appear to have
verified addresses that are not, in fact, verified.  If a site
disables these commands for security reasons, the SMTP server MUST
return a 252 response, rather than a code that could be confused with
successful or unsuccessful verification.

Returning a 250 reply code with the address listed in the VRFY
command after having checked it only for syntax violates this rule.
Of course, an implementation that "supports" VRFY by always returning
550 whether or not the address is valid is equally not in conformance.

Within the last four years, the contents of mailing lists have become
popular as an address information source for so-called "spammers". "spammers."
The use of EXPN to "harvest" addresses has increased as the list
administrators of the lists have devised and installed protections against inappropriate uses
of the lists themselves.  Implementations SHOULD still provide
support for EXPN, but sites should carefully evaluate the tradeoffs between the advantages of having EXPN
available for debugging purposes and the disadvantages of exposing
information that may be used in ways that list members may consider
inappropriate. tradeoffs..
As authentication mechanisms are introduced into SMTP, some sites may
choose to make EXPN available only to authenticated requestors.


7.4.  Information Disclosure

There has been an ongoing debate about the tradeoffs between the
debugging advantages of announcing server type and version (and,
sometimes, even server domain name) in the greeting response or in
response to the HELP command and the disadvantages of exposing useful
information to potential hostile attack.  The utility of the
debugging information is beyond doubt.  Those who argue for making it
available point out that it is far better to actually secure an SMTP
server rather than to hope that trying to conceal known vunerabilities
by hiding the server's precise identity will provide more than momentary protection.
Sites are encoruaged encouraged to evaluate the tradeoff with that issue in
mind; implementations are strongly encouraged to at least minimally provide
for making type and version information available in some way to
other network hosts. 


7.5.  Scope of operation of SMTP servers

It is a well-established principle that an SMTP server may refuse to
accept mail for any operational or technical reason that makes sense
to the site providing the server.  This is, of
course, just an example of the principle that sites on the
Internet should not be able to compel other sites to incur costs
on their behalf.  On the other hand, the Internet operates, in
many respects, by However, cooperation among sites
and installations.
Obviously, if installations makes the Internet possible..  If sites take
excessive advantage of the right to reject traffic, the ubiquity of
email availability that has been
one (one of the strengths of the Internet Internet) will be
threatened; considerable care should be taken and balance maintained
if a site decides to be selective about the traffic that is accepted it will accept
and processed. process.

In recent years, use of the relay function through arbitrary sites
has sometimes been used as part of hostile efforts to hide the actual origins
of mail, either to initiate unsolicited (and
difficult-to-trace) mass mailings or to mount denial of service
or other attacks. mail.  Some sites have consequently decided to limit the use of the relay
function to known or identifiable
sources sources, and implementations SHOULD
provide the capability to perform this type of filtering.  When mail
is rejected for these or other policy reasons, a 550 code should be
used in response to EHLO, MAIL FROM, or RCPT TO as appropriate.


8. IANA Considerations

IANA is [[requested]] to set up two registries.  The first consists
of SMTP service extensions with the associated keywords, and, as
needed, parameters and verbs.  As specified in section ##2.2.2, no
entry may be made in this registry that starts in an "X".  Entries
may be made only for service extensions (and associated keywords,
parameters, or verbs) that are defined in standards-track or
experimental RFCs specifically approved by IESG for this purpose.

The second registry consists of "tags" that identify forms of domain
literals other than those for IPv4 addresses (specified in RFC 821
and in this document) and IPv6 addresses (specified in this
document).  Additional literal types require standardization before
being used; none of these are anticipated at this time.


9.  REFERENCES

[1]  ASCII

   ASCII, "USA Code for Information Interchange", United States of
   America Standards Institute (now American National Standards
   Institute), X3.4, 1968.  ANSI X3.4-1968 has been replaced by
   newer versions with slight modifications, but the 1968
   version remains definitive for the Internet.

[RFC822]
   Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
   Messages", RFC 822, Department of Electrical Engineering,
   University of Delaware, August 1982.

[3]  TCP
   Postel, J., ed., "Transmission Control Protocol - DARPA Internet
   Program Protocol Specification", RFC 793, USC/Information Sciences
   Institute, NTIS AD Number A111091, September 1981.  Also in:
   Feinler, E. and J. Postel, eds., "Internet Protocol Transition
   Workbook", SRI International, Menlo Park, California, March 1982.

[HEADER-PEOPLE]

[RFC-DNS] P. Mockapetris, "Domain names - implementation and
      specification", RFC 1035 and P. Mockapetris, "Domain names -
      concepts and facilities", RFC 1034.  (STD 13)

[RFC974] C. Partridge, "Mail routing and the domain system", RFC
      974, 01/01/1986

[RFC1047] C. Partridge, "Duplicate messages and SMTP", RFC 1047,
      02/01/1988.

[RFC-SIZE]  J. Klensin, N. Freed, K. Moore, "SMTP Service Extension
      for Message Size Declaration", RFC 1870, 11/06/1995.  (STD 10)

[RFC-MIME] N. Freed, N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail 
      Extensions  (MIME) Part One:  Format of Internet Message
	  Bodies", RFC 2045, 12/02/1996. 

[RFC-INTLHDR] K. Moore, "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) 
      Part Three:  Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text", 
	  RFC 2047, 12/02/1996. 

[8BITMIME]  J. Klensin, N. Freed, M. Rose, E. Stefferud, D. Crocker,
      "SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport", RFC 1652,
      07/18/1994. 

[SMTPEX]  J. Klensin, N. Freed, M. Rose, E. Stefferud, D.
      Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", RFC-1869, 11/06/1995.

[RFC-1123] R. Braden, "Requirements for Internet hosts -
   application and support", 10/01/1989 

[RFC-MOSS]  S. Crocker, N. Freed, J. Galvin, S. Murphy, "MIME Object
   Security Services", RFC 1848, 10/03/1995.

[RFC-POP2] M. Butler, D. Chase, J. Goldberger, J. Postel, J.
     Reynolds, "Post Office Protocol - version 2", RFC 937,
     02/01/1985

[RFC-IMAP2]  M. Crispin, "Interactive Mail Access Protocol - Version
     2", RFC 1176, 08/20/1990.

[RFC-PCMAIL]  M. Lambert, "PCMAIL: A distributed mail system for
     personal computers", RFC 1056, 06/01/1988.

[RFC-POP3]  J. Myers, M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3",
   RFC 1930, 5/14/96 (Std 53).

[RFC-IMAP4] M. Crispin, "Internet Message Access Protocol
   - Version 4", RFC 2060, 12/04/1996.

[RFC-X400]  S. Hardcastle-Kille, "Mapping between X.400(1988) /
   ISO 10021 and RFC 822", RFC 1327, 05/18/1992.

[RFC-ETRN] J. De Winter, "SMTP Service Extension for Remote
   Message Queue Starting", RFC 1985, 08/14/1996.

[RFC-BDAT] G. Vaudreuil, "SMTP Service Extensions for
   Transmission of Large and Binary MIME Messages", RFC 1830,
   08/16/1995. 

[RFC-PIPELINE] N. Freed, A. Cargille, "SMTP Service Extension
   for Command Pipelining", RFC 1854, 10/04/1995.

[RFC-NOTARY1] K. Moore, "SMTP Service Extension for Delivery
   Status Notifications", RFC 1891, 01/15/1996.

[RFC-NOTARY2] K. Moore, G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message
   Format for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 1894,
   01/15/1996. 

[RFC-REPLY] G. Vaudreuil, "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes",
   RFC 1893, 01/15/1996.

[ABNF] Crocker, D., "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF",
   (in progress -- draft-ietf-drums-abnf-01.txt) draft-ietf-drums-abnf-03.txt)

[MSGFMT]  P. Resnick, Work in progress,
      draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-01.txt, March
      draft-ietf-drums-msg-fmt-02.txt, June 1997.


9. Editor's Addresses

 John C. Klensin
 MCI Communications
 800 Boylston St, St., 7th floor
 Boston, MA 02199
 USA
   Email: Klensin@mci.net
   Phone: +1 617 960 1011
   Fax:   +1 617 960 1009

Dawn P. Mann
Microsoft Corporation
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-6399
USA
   Email: dawnm@microsoft.com
   Tel: +1 425 936 5475



10. Acknowledgements Acknowledgments

<<>>to be supplied>> 



APPENDIX A

TCP Transport service

The Transmission Control Protocol [3] is used in the Internet, and in
any network following the Internet standards for internetwork protocols.

Connection Establishment

   The SMTP transmission channel is a TCP connection established
   between the sender process port U and the receiver process port
   L.  This single full duplex connection is used as the
   transmission channel.  This protocol is assigned the service
   port 25 (31 octal), that is L=25.

Data Transfer

   The TCP connection supports the transmission of 8-bit bytes.
   The SMTP data is 7-bit ASCII characters.  Each character is
   transmitted as an 8-bit byte with the high-order bit cleared to
   zero.   Service extensions may modify this rule to permit
   transmission of full 8-bit data bytes as part of the message
   body, but not in SMTP commands or responses.



APPENDIX B

Generating SMTP commands from RFC 822 headers
 
Some systems use RFC 822 headers (only) in a mail submission
protocol, or otherwise generate SMTP commands from RFC 822 headers
when such a message is handed to an MTA from a UA.  While the MTA-UA
protocol is a private matter, not covered by any Internet Standard,
there are problems with this approach.  For example, there have been
repeated problems with proper handling of "bcc" copies and
redistribution lists when information that conceptually belongs to a
mail envelopes is not separated early in processing from header
information (and kept separate).  

It is recommended that the UA provide its initial MTA with an
envelope separate from the message itself.  However, if the envelope
is not supplied, SMTP commands should be generated as follows:

(i) each recipient address from a TO, CC, or BCC header field
should be copied to a RCPT command (generating multiple message
copies if that is required for queuing or delivery).  This includes
any addresses listed in a RFC 822 "group".  Any BCC fields should
then be removed from the headers.  Once this process is completed,
the remaining headers should be checked to verify that at least one
To:, Cc:, or Bcc: header remains.  If none do, then a bcc: header
with no additional information SHOULD be inserted as specified in
[MSGFMT].

(ii) the return address in the MAIL command should, if possible, be
derived from the system's identity for the submitting (local) user.
And the From header field otherwise.  If there is a system identity
available, it should also be copied to the Sender header field if it
is different from the address in the From header field.  (Any Sender
field that was already there should be removed.)  Systems may provide
a way for submitters to override the envelope return address, but may
want to restrict its use to privileged users.  (This will not prevent
mail forgery, but may lessen its incidence -- see section 7.1.)

When an MTA is being used in this way, it bears responsibility for
ensuring that the message being transmitted is valid.  The mechanisms
for checking that validity, and for handling (or returning) messages
that are not valid at the time of arrival, are part of the MUA-MTA
interface and not covered by this specification.

A submission protocol based on Standard RFC 822 information alone
MUST NOT be used to gateway a message from a foreign (non-SMTP) mail
system into an SMTP environment.  Additional information to construct
an envelope must come from some source in the other environment,
whether supplemental headers or the foreign system's envelope.

Attempts to gateway messages using only their header "to" and "cc"
fields, have repeatedly caused mail loops and other behavior adverse
to the proper functioning of the Internet mail environment.  These
problems have been especially common when the message originates from
an Internet mailing list and is distributed into the foreign
environment using envelope information.  When these messages are then
processed by a header-only remailer, loops back to the Internet
environment (and the mailing list) are almost inevitable.


APPENDIX C

Source routes.

The <reverse-path> is a reverse source routing list of hosts and a
source mailbox.  The first host in the <reverse-path> should be the
host sending this the MAIL FROM command.  Similarly, the <forward-path>
may be a source routing lists of hosts and a destination mailbox.
However, in general, the <forward-path> should contain only a mailbox
and domain name, relying on the domain name system to supply routing
information if required.   The use of source routes is deprecated;
while servers MUST be prepared to receive and handle them as
discussed in section ##3.3 and below, clients SHOULD NOT transmit
them. 

For relay purposes, the forward-path may be a source route of the
form "@ONE,@TWO:JOE@THREE", where ONE, TWO, and THREE MUST BE
fully-qualified domain names.  This form is used to emphasize the
distinction between an address and a route.  The mailbox is an
absolute address, and the route is information about how to get
there.  The two concepts should not be confused.

If source routes are used, RFC 821 and the text below should be
consulted for the mechanisms for constructing and updating the
forward- and reverse-paths.

The SMTP server transforms the command arguments by moving its own
identifier (its domain name or that of any domain for which it is
acting as a mail exchanger), if it appears, from the forward-path to
the beginning of the reverse-path.  

Notice that the forward-path and reverse-path appear in the SMTP
commands and replies, but not necessarily in the message.  That is,
there is no need for these paths and especially this syntax to appear
in the "To:" , "From:", "CC:", etc. fields of the message header.
Conversely, SMTP servers MUST NOT derive final message delivery
information from message header fields.

 When the list of hosts is present, it is a "reverse" source route
and indicates that the mail was relayed through each host on the list
(the first host in the list was the most recent relay).  This list is
used as a source route to return non-delivery notices to the sender.
As each relay host adds itself to the beginning of the list, it must
use its name as known in the transport environment to which it is
relaying the mail rather than that of the transport environment from
which the mail came (if they are different). 




APPENDIX F

Scenarios

This section presents complete scenarios of several types of SMTP
sessions.

A Typical SMTP Transaction Scenario

This SMTP example shows mail sent by Smith at host USC-ISIF, to
Jones, Green, and Brown at host BBN-UNIX.  Here we assume that host
USC-ISIF contacts host BBN-UNIX directly.  The mail is accepted for
Jones and Brown.  Green does not have a mailbox at host BBN-UNIX.

-------------------------------------------------------------

   R: 220 BBN-UNIX.ARPA Simple Mail Transfer Service Ready
   S: HELO USC-ISIF.ARPA
   R: 250 BBN-UNIX.ARPA

   S: MAIL FROM:<Smith@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
   R: 250 OK

   S: RCPT TO:<Jones@BBN-UNIX.ARPA>
   R: 250 OK

   S: RCPT TO:<Green@BBN-UNIX.ARPA>
   R: 550 No such user here

   S: RCPT TO:<Brown@BBN-UNIX.ARPA>
   R: 250 OK

   S: DATA
   R: 354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>
   S: Blah blah blah...
   S: ...etc. etc. etc.
   S: .
   R: 250 OK

   S: QUIT
   R: 221 BBN-UNIX.ARPA Service closing transmission channel

                         Scenario 1

-------------------------------------------------------------





Aborted SMTP Transaction Scenario

-------------------------------------------------------------

   R: 220 MIT-Multics.ARPA Simple Mail Transfer Service Ready
   S: HELO ISI-VAXA.ARPA
   R: 250 MIT-Multics.ARPA

   S: MAIL FROM:<Smith@ISI-VAXA.ARPA>
   R: 250 OK

   S: RCPT TO:<Jones@MIT-Multics.ARPA>
   R: 250 OK

   S: RCPT TO:<Green@MIT-Multics.ARPA>
   R: 550 No such user here

   S: RSET
   R: 250 OK

   S: QUIT
   R: 221 MIT-Multics.ARPA Service closing transmission channel

                         Scenario 2

-------------------------------------------------------------



Relayed Mail Scenario

-------------------------------------------------------------

   Step 1  --  Source Host to Relay Host

      R: 220 USC-ISIE.ARPA Simple Mail Transfer Service Ready
      S: HELO MIT-AI.ARPA
      R: 250 USC-ISIE.ARPA

      S: MAIL FROM:<JQP@MIT-AI.ARPA>
      R: 250 OK

      S: RCPT TO:<@USC-ISIE.ARPA:Jones@BBN-VAX.ARPA>
      R: 250 OK

      S: DATA
      R: 354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>
      S: Date: 2 Nov 81 22:33:44
      S: From: John Q. Public <JQP@MIT-AI.ARPA>
      S: Subject:  The Next Meeting of the Board
      S: To: Jones@BBN-Vax.ARPA
      S:
      S: Bill:
      S: The next meeting of the board of directors will be
      S: on Tuesday.
      S:                                              John.
      S: .
      R: 250 OK

      S: QUIT
      R: 221 USC-ISIE.ARPA Service closing transmission channel


   Step 2  --  Relay Host to Destination Host

      R: 220 BBN-VAX.ARPA Simple Mail Transfer Service Ready
      S: HELO USC-ISIE.ARPA
      R: 250 BBN-VAX.ARPA

      S: MAIL FROM:<@USC-ISIE.ARPA:JQP@MIT-AI.ARPA>
      R: 250 OK

      S: RCPT TO:<Jones@BBN-VAX.ARPA>
      R: 250 OK

      S: DATA
      R: 354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>
      S: Received: from MIT-AI.ARPA by USC-ISIE.ARPA ;
         2 Nov 81 22:40:10 UT
      S: Date: 2 Nov 81 22:33:44
      S: From: John Q. Public <JQP@MIT-AI.ARPA>
      S: Subject:  The Next Meeting of the Board
      S: To: Jones@BBN-Vax.ARPA
      S:
      S: Bill:
      S: The next meeting of the board of directors will be
      S: on Tuesday.
      S:                                              John.
      S: .
      R: 250 OK

      S: QUIT
      R: 221 USC-ISIE.ARPA Service closing transmission channel

                         Scenario 3

-------------------------------------------------------------




Verifying and Sending Scenario

-------------------------------------------------------------

   R: 220 SU-SCORE.ARPA Simple Mail Transfer Service Ready
   S: HELO MIT-MC.ARPA
   R: 250 SU-SCORE.ARPA

   S: VRFY Crispin
   R: 250 Mark Crispin <Admin.MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA>

   S: SEND FROM:<EAK@MIT-MC.ARPA>
   R: 250 OK

   S: RCPT TO:<Admin.MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
   R: 250 OK

   S: DATA
   R: 354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>
   S: Blah blah blah...
   S: ...etc. etc. etc.
   S: .
   R: 250 OK

   S: QUIT
   R: 221 SU-SCORE.ARPA Service closing transmission channel

                         Scenario 4

-------------------------------------------------------------




Mailing List Scenario

First each of two mailing lists are expanded in separate sessions
with different hosts.  Then the message is sent to everyone that
appeared on either list (but no duplicates) via a relay host.

-------------------------------------------------------------

   Step 1  --  Expanding the First List

      R: 220 MIT-AI.ARPA Simple Mail Transfer Service Ready
      S: HELO SU-SCORE.ARPA
      R: 250 MIT-AI.ARPA

      S: EXPN Example-People
      R: 250-<ABC@MIT-MC.ARPA>
      R: 250-Fred Fonebone <Fonebone@USC-ISIQ.ARPA>
      R: 250-Xenon Y. Zither <XYZ@MIT-AI.ARPA>
      R: 250-Quincy Smith <@USC-ISIF.ARPA:Q-Smith@ISI-VAXA.ARPA>
      R: 250-<joe@foo-unix.ARPA>
      R: 250 <xyz@bar-unix.ARPA>

      S: QUIT
      R: 221 MIT-AI.ARPA Service closing transmission channel


   Step 2  --  Expanding the Second List

      R: 220 MIT-MC.ARPA Simple Mail Transfer Service Ready
      S: HELO SU-SCORE.ARPA
      R: 250 MIT-MC.ARPA

      S: EXPN Interested-Parties
      R: 250-Al Calico <ABC@MIT-MC.ARPA>
      R: 250-<XYZ@MIT-AI.ARPA>
      R: 250-Quincy Smith <@USC-ISIF.ARPA:Q-Smith@ISI-VAXA.ARPA>
      R: 250-<fred@BBN-UNIX.ARPA>
      R: 250 <xyz@bar-unix.ARPA>

      S: QUIT
      R: 221 MIT-MC.ARPA Service closing transmission channel


   Step 3  --  Mailing to All via a Relay Host

      R: 220 USC-ISIE.ARPA Simple Mail Transfer Service Ready
      S: HELO SU-SCORE.ARPA
      R: 250 USC-ISIE.ARPA

      S: MAIL FROM:<Account.Person@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
      R: 250 OK
      S: RCPT TO:<@USC-ISIE.ARPA:ABC@MIT-MC.ARPA>
      R: 250 OK
      S: RCPT TO:<@USC-ISIE.ARPA:Fonebone@USC-ISIQA.ARPA>
      R: 250 OK
      S: RCPT TO:<@USC-ISIE.ARPA:XYZ@MIT-AI.ARPA>
      R: 250 OK
      S: RCPT
          TO:<@USC-ISIE.ARPA,@USC-ISIF.ARPA:Q-Smith@ISI-VAXA.ARPA>
      R: 250 OK
      S: RCPT TO:<@USC-ISIE.ARPA:joe@FOO-UNIX.ARPA>
      R: 250 OK
      S: RCPT TO:<@USC-ISIE.ARPA:xyz@BAR-UNIX.ARPA>
      R: 250 OK
      S: RCPT TO:<@USC-ISIE.ARPA:fred@BBN-UNIX.ARPA>
      R: 250 OK

      S: DATA
      R: 354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>
      S: Blah blah blah...
      S: ...etc. etc. etc.
      S: .
      R: 250 OK

      S: QUIT
      R: 221 USC-ISIE.ARPA Service closing transmission channel

                         Scenario 7

-------------------------------------------------------------



Too Many Recipients Scenario

-------------------------------------------------------------

   R: 220 BERKELEY.ARPA Simple Mail Transfer Service Ready
   S: HELO USC-ISIF.ARPA
   R: 250 BERKELEY.ARPA

   S: MAIL FROM:<Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
   R: 250 OK

   S: RCPT TO:<fabry@BERKELEY.ARPA>
   R: 250 OK

   S: RCPT TO:<eric@BERKELEY.ARPA>
   R: 552 Recipient storage full, try again in another transaction

   S: DATA
   R: 354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>
   S: Blah blah blah...
   S: ...etc. etc. etc.
   S: .
   R: 250 OK

   S: MAIL FROM:<Postel@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
   R: 250 OK

   S: RCPT TO:<eric@BERKELEY.ARPA>
   R: 250 OK

   S: DATA
   R: 354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>
   S: Blah blah blah...
   S: ...etc. etc. etc.
   S: .
   R: 250 OK

   S: QUIT
   R: 221 BERKELEY.ARPA Service closing transmission channel

                        Scenario 10

-------------------------------------------------------------

Note that a real implementation must handle many recipients as
specified in Section ##4.5.3.



APPENDIX G  Other gateway issues.

In general, gateways between the Internet and other mail systems
SHOULD attempt to preserve any layering semantics across the
boundaries between the two mail systems involved.  Gateway-
translation approaches that attempt to take shortcuts by mapping,
e.g., envelope information from one system to the message headers or
body of another have generally proven to be inadequate in important
ways.  Systems translating between environments that do not support
both envelopes and headers and Internet mail must be written with the
understanding that some information loss is almost inevitable.



APPENDIX I: Deprecated features of RFC 821

A few features of RFC 821 have proven to be problematic and should
not be used in Internet mail.  These are:

(1) TURN

This command, described in RFC 821, raises important security issues
(described in RFC 1123).  Its use is deprecated; SMTP systems SHOULD
NOT use it unless the server can authenticate the client. 

(2) Source routing

RFC 821 utilized the concept of explicit source routing to get mail
from one host to another via a series of relays.  The requirement to
utilize source routes in regular mail traffic was eliminated by the
introduction of the domain name system "MX" record and the last
significant justification for them was eliminated by the
introduction, in RFC 1123, of a clear requirement that addresses
following an "@" must all be fully-qualified domain names.
Consequently, the only remaining justifications for the use of source
routes are support for very old SMTP clients or MUAs and in mail
system debugging.  They can, however, still be useful in the latter
circumstance and for routing mail around serious, but temporary,
problems such as problems with the relevant DNS records.

SMTP servers MUST continue to accept source route syntax as specified
in the main body of this document and in RFC 1123.  They MAY, if
necessary, ignore the routes and utilize only the target domain in
the address.  If they do utilize the source route, the message MUST
be sent to the first domain shown in the address.  In particular, a
server MUST NOT guess at shortcuts within the source route.

Clients SHOULD NOT utilize explicit source routing except under
unusual circumstances, such as debugging or potentially relaying
around firewall or mail system configuration errors.  

(3) HELO

As discussed in sections ##3.1 and ##4.1.1, EHLO is strongly
preferred to HELO when the server will accept the former.  Servers
must continue to accept and process HELO in order to support older
clients.


(4) #-literals

RFC 821 provided for specifying an Internet address as a decimal
integer host number prefixed by a pound sign, "#".  In practice, that
form has been obsolete since the introduction of TCP/IP.  It is
deprecated and MUST NOT be used.

(5) Dates and years

When dates are inserted into messages by SMTP clients or servers
(e.g., in trace fields), four-digit years MUST BE used.  Two-digit
years are deprecated; three-digit years were never permitted in the
Internet mail system.

(6) Sending versus mailing

In addition to specifying a mechanism for delivering messages to
user's mailboxes, RFC 821 provided additional, optional, commands to
deliver messages directly to the user's terminal screen.  These
commands (SEND, SAML, SOML) were rarely implemented, and changes in
workstation technology and the introduction of other protocols may
have rendered them obsolete even where they are implemented. 

Clients SHOULD NOT provide SEND, SAML, or SOML as services.  Servers
MAY implement them.  If they are implemented by servers, the
implementation model specified in RFC 821 MUST be used and the
command names MUST be published in the response to the EHLO command.



APPENDIX X: Change summary and Loose ends (temporary)

X.1 Change summary

X.1.1 Substantive changes between draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-00.txt and
draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-01.txt 

(i) Slightly clarified the discussions of rejection and failure of
VRFY requests and the associated response codes.

(ii) Slightly clarified the discussion of deferred address
validation. 

(iii) Removed the IPCE terminology and modified the text in section
##4.1.1.2 to explicitly introduce the "mail gateway" terminology and
to begin to distinguish a mail gateway from a conventional relay.
**Please Review This Text**.

(iv) Explicitly noted that SMTP clients for things like POP and IMAP
may send everything to a single relay for further processing, rather
than resolving final domain names.

(v) Tightened the RSET discussion.

(vi) Deprecation of 251 only for RCPT (still ok for VRFY)



X.1.2.  Substantive changes between draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-01.txt
and draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-02.txt.

Incorporated additional RFC 1123 material; reorganized several
sections for clarity.  Added definitions and other previous "loose
end" material.


X.1.3.  Substantive changes between draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-02.txt
and draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-03.txt.

(i) Eliminated a number of placeholders and tightened some of the
definitions in section 2.  Added a few new placeholders for
consistency checking against other documents.

(ii) Removed the state diagrams, per direction at IETF Montreal.

(iii) Added new section 6.3, an attempt to summarize WG discussions
on the "posting" versus "delivery" versus "relay" functions of SMTP
and on whether "fixups" are appropriate in different cases.

(iv) Inserted section 6.1, a minor rewrite of section 5.3.3 of
RFC1123. 

(v) Added new text to 3.5.5 to discuss the spammer - EXPN
relationship. 

(vi) The "ASCII requirement" in 4.1.1.4 has been tightened somewhat.

(v) The remaining miscellaneous changes agreed to in Montreal have
been incorporated except as noted below.


X.1.4.  Substantive changes between draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-03.txt
and draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-04.txt.

Many small changes have been made between these two versions; the
list that follows is not exhaustive.

(i) To clarify some of the text, definitions have been introduced to
distinguish among originating, delivery, relay, and gateway SMTP
systems. 

(ii) The role of LF-terminated lines has been clarified.

(iii) Several changes have been made to clarify the principle
that, no matter what originating and final delivery systems
might do, relay systems are not permitted to tamper with message
content, even to "fix" headers that are determined to be
invalid.  If they deem message content to be seriously
unacceptable, they are encouraged to reject the messages in
preference to trying to fix them up, but, in general, the theme
is "don't look/ don't tell".

(iv) A few more definitions have been added to the terminology
section, and the separate glossary has been eliminated.

(v) I have taken a shot at text to address some of the controversies
that have raged on the WG mailing list (e.g., sections 7.4 and 7.5).
Since there was no consensus on most of those topics, I expect that
the inserted text will satisfy no one except, perhaps, for agreement
that saying nothing would have been worse.  As a mechanism for moving
forward, the text in these controversial areas that now appears will
be considered "base"; alterations will be made only if clear
consensus emerges.

(vi) Per discussion in Los Angeles, source routes have been further
deprecated. 

(vii) Some of the VRFY/EXPN materials have been moved to "security
considerations", where they appear to belong, some text has been
added, and the conformance statements adjusted to reflect what I
perceive to be WG consensus.

(viii) New MX resolution material has been added to section 5.  While
most of this material is from RFC974, the rules have been further
tightened to reflect current practice and experience (974 is written
in a somewhat speculative fashion for a standard).  In particular,
the behavior of trying the target host's A RR when MXs existed but
all of them were eliminated is now prohibited, which seems necessary
if another of other ideas being recommended or considered are to be
feasible. 


X.1.5.  Substantive changes between draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-04.txt
and draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-05.txt.

(i) All normative references to RFC 1123 have been removed from the
main body of the text (some still appear in the appendices where they
will remain).

(ii) Section 3.5 has been renamed slightly to distinguish between
"debuging of SMTP implementations" and "debugging of addresses".
Better terminology would be welcome.

(iii) Error conditions resulting from the DATA command have been
clarified. 

(iv) Section 4.2 (SMTP replies) has been revised and tightened to
reflect reality and recent discussion on the list.

(v) Appendix E has been revised a bit and moved into section 4.2.1.
Given the importance of the "check only first digit" rule, it has to
be there.

(vi) Added new text for "no SMTP service supported" to sections
3.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, and 4.3.2.  As noted in 3.1, I'd rather add 521
(which would work perfectly with the model) rather than overloading
554.  

(vii) The Return-path language in section 4.4 has been cleaned up a
bit. 

(viii) Tightened the "postmaster" language in 4.5.1, requiring a
small change to 4.1.1.3.

(ix) I have unilaterally (with a little help from my friends),
increased some of the size limits.  64 was much too short for a
domain name, and the DNS limit of 255 (?) has now been inserted.
That leaves the return path much too short, but I haven't fixed it
(maybe that will cause us to get rid of them).  We still have a 64
character limit on the local-part, which is also *much* too short.
Votes for 128 or longer limits accepted.  See X.1.6(I)

(x) The text on the "recipients buffer" has been rewritten so that (I
hope) it makes sense and gives some explicit guidance for how clients
and servers should proceed if limits are imposed.


X.1.6.  Substantive changes between draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-05.txt
and draft-ietf-drums-smtpupd-06.txt.

Most of the changes in this revision have been editorial rather than 
substantive.  Major substantive changes include:

(i)  The language about maximum sizes of SMTP command lines has been 
reworked, per WG mailing list discussion.

(ii)  Several instances of  "Should" have been promoted to "Must" when the 
reasons for the weaker rule seemed to have disappeared.   In
particular, the requirement that an SMTP implementation support
timeouts has become a MUST.  Also, conformance to this specification
requires support of EHLO.  Older systems should claim conformance to
the [to-be-historical] 821, not this specification.



X.2 Loose ends

(i) The 822 BNF -> ABNF transition is not yet complete, and most of
what has been done needs checking.

(ii)  Examples Most examples are not yet revised, overview and grammar are
still to be merged. 

(iii) We have agreed that all of the definition of trace ("Received:")
fields should be moved to this document from the message format one.
That work is not yet complete. complete, partially because I’m still waiting on 
ABNF.  There are also several unanswered questions about exactly what
should be said.

(iv) The Appendices have not yet been numbered consecutively.  Note
that Appendix X is temporary and is not expected to appear in any
final publication.

(v) See X.1.5(ix), above.

(vi) Should the code for "too many recipients" be 552 (as in previous
drafts) or 452 (which might make sense, especially given the "first
digit" rule).

(vii) Should we promote the requirement to support timeouts for all
commands to a "MUST"?

See also Chris Newman's "Drums open issues" list.
----