Add files from ESR's dev directory that weren't under version control

svn path=/trunk/; revision=3881

1 files changed, 227 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/RFC/rfc1892.txt b/RFC/rfc1892.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..c4bdbd5f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/RFC/rfc1892.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                       G. Vaudreuil
+Request for Comments: 1892                        Octel Network Services
+Category: Standards Track                                   January 1996
+
+
+                   The Multipart/Report Content Type
+                          for the Reporting of
+                  Mail System Administrative Messages
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
+   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
+   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
+   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+1. The Multipart/Report MIME content-type
+
+   The Multipart/Report MIME content-type is a general "family" or
+   "container" type for electronic mail reports of any kind. Although
+   this memo defines only the use of the Multipart/Report content-type
+   with respect to delivery status reports, mail processing programs
+   will benefit if a single content-type is used to for all kinds of
+   reports.
+
+   The Multipart/Report content-type is defined as follows:
+
+             MIME type name: multipart
+             MIME subtype name: report
+             Required parameters: boundary, report-type
+             Optional parameters: none
+             Encoding considerations: 7bit should always be adequate
+             Security considerations: see section 4 of this memo.
+
+   The syntax of Multipart/Report is identical to the Multipart/Mixed
+   content type defined in [MIME].  When used to send a report, the
+   Multipart/Report content-type must be the top-level MIME content type
+   for any report message.  The report-type parameter identifies the
+   type of report.  The parameter is the MIME content sub-type of the
+   second body part of the Multipart/Report.
+
+      User agents and gateways must be able to automatically determine
+      that a message is a mail system report and should be processed as
+      such.  Placing the Multipart/Report as the outermost content
+      provides a mechanism whereby an auto-processor may detect through
+      parsing the RFC 822 headers that the message is a report.
+
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1892                    Multipart/Report                January 1996
+
+
+   The Multipart/Report content-type contains either two or three sub-
+   parts, in the following order:
+
+   (1) [required]  The first body part contains human readable message.
+       The purpose of this message is to provide an easily-understood
+       description of the condition(s) that caused the report to be
+       generated, for a human reader who may not have an user agent
+       capable of interpreting the second section of the
+       Multipart/Report.
+
+       The text in the first section may be in any MIME standards-track
+       content-type, charset, or language.  Where a description of the
+       error is desired in several languages or several media, a
+       Multipart/Alternative construct may be used.
+
+       This body part may also be used to send detailed information
+       that cannot be easily formatted into a Message/Report body part.
+
+   (2) [required]  A machine parsable body part containing an account
+       of the reported message handling event. The purpose of this body
+       part is to provide a machine-readable description of the
+       condition(s) which caused the report to be generated, along with
+       details not present in the first body part that may be useful to
+       human experts.  An initial body part, Message/delivery-status is
+       defined in [DSN]
+
+   (3) [optional]  A body part containing the returned message or a
+       portion thereof.  This information may be useful to aid human
+       experts in diagnosing problems.  (Although it may also be useful
+       to allow the sender to identify the message which the report was
+       issued, it is hoped that the envelope-id and original-recipient-
+       address returned in the Message/Report body part will replace
+       the traditional use of the returned content for this purpose.)
+
+   Return of content may be wasteful of network bandwidth and a variety
+   of implementation strategies can be used.  Generally the sender
+   should choose the appropriate strategy and inform the recipient of
+   the required level of returned content required.  In the absence of
+   an explicit request for level of return of content such as that
+   provided in [DRPT], the agent which generated the delivery service
+   report should return the full message content.
+
+   When data not encoded in 7 bits is to be returned, and the return
+   path is not guaranteed to be 8-bit capable, two options are
+   available.  The origional message MAY be reencoded into a legal 7 bit
+   MIME message or the Text/RFC822-Headers content-type MAY be used to
+   return only the origional message headers.
+
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1892                    Multipart/Report                January 1996
+
+
+2. The Text/RFC822-Headers MIME content-type
+
+   The Text/RFC822-Headers MIME content-type provides a mechanism to
+   label and return only the RFC 822 headers of a failed message.  These
+   headers are not the complete message and should not be returned as a
+   Message/RFC822.  The returned headers are useful for identifying the
+   failed message and for diagnostics based on the received: lines.
+
+   The Text/RFC822-Headers content-type is defined as follows:
+
+          MIME type name: Text
+          MIME subtype name: RFC822-Headers
+          Required parameters: None
+          Optional parameters: none
+          Encoding considerations: 7 bit is sufficient for normal RFC822
+                 headers, however, if the headers are broken and require
+                 encoding, they may be encoded in quoted-printable.
+          Security considerations: see section 4 of this memo.
+
+   The Text/RFC822-headers body part should contain all the RFC822
+   header lines from the message which caused the report.  The RFC822
+   headers include all lines prior to the blank line in the message.
+   They include the MIME-Version and MIME Content- headers.
+
+3. References
+
+   [DSN] Moore, K., and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for
+       Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 1894, University of
+       Tennessee, Octel Network Services, January 1996.
+
+   [RFC822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet Text
+       Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, UDEL, August 1982.
+
+   [MIME] Borenstein, N., and N. Freed, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
+       Extensions", RFC 1521, Bellcore, Innosoft, June 1992.
+
+   [DRPT] Moore, K., "SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status
+       Notifications", RFC 1891, University of Tennessee, January 1996.
+
+4. Security Considerations
+
+   Automated use of report types without authentication presents several
+   security issues.  Forging negative reports presents the opportunity
+   for denial-of-service attacks when the reports are used for automated
+   maintenance of directories or mailing lists.  Forging positive
+   reports may cause the sender to incorrectly believe a message was
+   delivered when it was not.
+
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1892                    Multipart/Report                January 1996
+
+
+5. Author's Address
+
+   Gregory M. Vaudreuil
+   Octel Network Services
+   17060 Dallas Parkway
+   Dallas, TX 75248-1905
+
+   Phone: +1-214-733-2722
+   EMail: Greg.Vaudreuil@Octel.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 4]
+