Remove RFCs from the trunk, since we don't distribute them anyways. All of the removed RFCs are listed in the design-notes.html file, with the exception of NNTP (RFC977). Also add a link to the "LAN Mail Protocols" document to the design-notes.html file.

svn path=/trunk/; revision=4013

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 843 deletions

diff --git a/RFC/rfc1893.txt b/RFC/rfc1893.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index 9ca4efb5..00000000
--- a/RFC/rfc1893.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,843 +0,0 @@
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Network Working Group                                        G. Vaudreuil
-Request for Comments: 1893                         Octel Network Services
-Category: Standards Track                                    January 1996
-
-
-                   Enhanced Mail System Status Codes
-
-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.   Overview
-
-   There currently is not a standard mechanism for the reporting of mail
-   system errors except for the limited set offered by SMTP and the
-   system specific text descriptions sent in mail messages.  There is a
-   pressing need for a rich machine readable status code for use in
-   delivery status notifications [DSN].  This document proposes a new
-   set of status codes for this purpose.
-
-   SMTP [SMTP] error codes have historically been used for reporting
-   mail system errors.  Because of limitations in the SMTP code design,
-   these are not suitable for use in delivery status notifications.
-   SMTP provides about 12 useful codes for delivery reports.  The
-   majority of the codes are protocol specific response codes such as
-   the 354 response to the SMTP data command.  Each of the 12 useful
-   codes are each overloaded to indicate several error conditions each.
-   SMTP suffers some scars from history, most notably the unfortunate
-   damage to the reply code extension mechanism by uncontrolled use.
-   This proposal facilitates future extensibility by requiring the
-   client to interpret unknown error codes according to the theory of
-   codes while requiring servers to register new response codes.
-
-   The SMTP theory of reply codes partitioned in the number space such a
-   manner that the remaining available codes will not provide the space
-   needed.  The most critical example is the existence of only 5
-   remaining codes for mail system errors.  The mail system
-   classification includes both host and mailbox error conditions.  The
-   remaining third digit space would be completely consumed as needed to
-   indicate MIME and media conversion errors and security system errors.
-
-   A revision to the SMTP theory of reply codes to better distribute the
-   error conditions in the number space will necessarily be incompatible
-   with SMTP.  Further, consumption of the remaining reply-code number
-
-
-
-Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 1]
-
-RFC 1893                Mail System Status Codes            January 1996
-
-
-   space for delivery notification reporting will reduce the available
-   codes for new ESMTP extensions.
-
-   The following proposal is based on the SMTP theory of reply codes.
-   It adopts the success, permanent error, and transient error semantics
-   of the first value, with a further description and classification in
-   the second.  This proposal re-distributes the classifications to
-   better distribute the error conditions, such as separating mailbox
-   from host errors.
-
-2.   Status Codes
-
-   This document defines a new set of status codes to report mail system
-   conditions.  These status codes are intended to be used for media and
-   language independent status reporting.  They are not intended for
-   system specific diagnostics.
-
-   The syntax of the new status codes is defined as:
-
-          status-code = class "." subject "." detail
-          class = "2"/"4"/"5"
-          subject = 1*3digit
-          detail = 1*3digit
-
-   White-space characters and comments are NOT allowed within a status-
-   code.  Each numeric sub-code within the status-code MUST be expressed
-   without leading zero digits.
-
-   Status codes consist of three numerical fields separated by ".". The
-   first sub-code indicates whether the delivery attempt was successful.
-   The second sub-code indicates the probable source of any delivery
-   anomalies, and the third sub-code indicates a precise error
-   condition.
-
-   The codes space defined is intended to be extensible only by
-   standards track documents.  Mail system specific status codes should
-   be mapped as close as possible to the standard status codes.  Servers
-   should send only defined, registered status codes.  System specific
-   errors and diagnostics should be carried by means other than status
-   codes.
-
-   New subject and detail codes will be added over time.  Because the
-   number space is large, it is not intended that published status codes
-   will ever be redefined or eliminated.  Clients should preserve the
-   extensibility of the code space by reporting the general error
-   described in the subject sub-code when the specific detail is
-   unrecognized.
-
-
-
-
-Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 2]
-
-RFC 1893                Mail System Status Codes            January 1996
-
-
-   The class sub-code provides a broad classification of the status.
-   The enumerated values the class are defined as:
-
-    2.X.X   Success
-
-       Success specifies that the DSN is reporting a positive delivery
-       action.  Detail sub-codes may provide notification of
-       transformations required for delivery.
-
-    4.X.X   Persistent Transient Failure
-
-       A persistent transient failure is one in which the message as
-       sent is valid, but some temporary event prevents the successful
-       sending of the message.  Sending in the future may be successful.
-
-    5.X.X   Permanent Failure
-
-       A permanent failure is one which is not likely to be resolved by
-       resending the message in the current form.  Some change to the
-       message or the destination must be made for successful delivery.
-
-   A client must recognize and report class sub-code even where
-   subsequent subject sub-codes are unrecognized.
-
-   The subject sub-code classifies the status.  This value applies to
-   each of the three classifications.  The subject sub-code, if
-   recognized, must be reported even if the additional detail provided
-   by the detail sub-code is not recognized.  The enumerated values for
-   the subject sub-code are:
-
-       X.0.X   Other or Undefined Status
-
-          There is no additional subject information available.
-
-       X.1.X   Addressing Status
-
-          The address status reports on the originator or destination
-          address.  It may include address syntax or validity.  These
-          errors can generally be corrected by the sender and retried.
-
-       X.2.X   Mailbox Status
-
-          Mailbox status indicates that something having to do with the
-          mailbox has cause this DSN.  Mailbox issues are assumed to be
-          under the general control of the recipient.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 3]
-
-RFC 1893                Mail System Status Codes            January 1996
-
-
-       X.3.X   Mail System Status
-
-          Mail system status indicates that something having to do
-          with the destination system has caused this DSN.  System
-          issues are assumed to be under the general control of the
-          destination system administrator.
-
-       X.4.X   Network and Routing Status
-
-          The networking or routing codes report status about the
-          delivery system itself.  These system components include any
-          necessary infrastructure such as directory and routing
-          services.  Network issues are assumed to be under the
-          control of the destination or intermediate system
-          administrator.
-
-       X.5.X   Mail Delivery Protocol Status
-
-          The mail delivery protocol status codes report failures
-          involving the message delivery protocol.  These failures
-          include the full range of problems resulting from
-          implementation errors or an unreliable connection.  Mail
-          delivery protocol issues may be controlled by many parties
-          including the originating system, destination system, or
-          intermediate system administrators.
-
-       X.6.X   Message Content or Media Status
-
-          The message content or media status codes report failures
-          involving the content of the message.  These codes report
-          failures due to translation, transcoding, or otherwise
-          unsupported message media.  Message content or media issues
-          are under the control of both the sender and the receiver,
-          both of whom must support a common set of supported
-          content-types.
-
-       X.7.X   Security or Policy Status
-
-          The security or policy status codes report failures
-          involving policies such as per-recipient or per-host
-          filtering and cryptographic operations.  Security and policy
-          status issues are assumed to be under the control of either
-          or both the sender and recipient.  Both the sender and
-          recipient must permit the exchange of messages and arrange
-          the exchange of necessary keys and certificates for
-          cryptographic operations.
-
-
-
-
-
-Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 4]
-
-RFC 1893                Mail System Status Codes            January 1996
-
-
-3.   Enumerated Status Codes
-
-   The following section defines and describes the detail sub-code. The
-   detail value provides more information about the status and is
-   defined relative to the subject of the status.
-
-   3.1 Other or Undefined Status
-
-       X.0.0   Other undefined Status
-
-          Other undefined status is the only undefined error code. It
-          should be used for all errors for which only the class of the
-          error is known.
-
-   3.2 Address Status
-
-       X.1.0   Other address status
-
-          Something about the address specified in the message caused
-          this DSN.
-
-       X.1.1   Bad destination mailbox address
-
-          The mailbox specified in the address does not exist.  For
-          Internet mail names, this means the address portion to the
-          left of the "@" sign is invalid.  This code is only useful
-          for permanent failures.
-
-       X.1.2   Bad destination system address
-
-          The destination system specified in the address does not
-          exist or is incapable of accepting mail.  For Internet mail
-          names, this means the address portion to the right of the
-          "@" is invalid for mail.  This codes is only useful for
-          permanent failures.
-
-       X.1.3   Bad destination mailbox address syntax
-
-          The destination address was syntactically invalid.  This can
-          apply to any field in the address.  This code is only useful
-          for permanent failures.
-
-       X.1.4   Destination mailbox address ambiguous
-
-          The mailbox address as specified matches one or more
-          recipients on the destination system.  This may result if a
-          heuristic address mapping algorithm is used to map the
-          specified address to a local mailbox name.
-
-
-
-Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 5]
-
-RFC 1893                Mail System Status Codes            January 1996
-
-
-       X.1.5   Destination address valid
-
-          This mailbox address as specified was valid.  This status
-          code should be used for positive delivery reports.
-
-       X.1.6   Destination mailbox has moved, No forwarding address
-
-          The mailbox address provided was at one time valid, but mail
-          is no longer being accepted for that address.  This code is
-          only useful for permanent failures.
-
-       X.1.7   Bad sender's mailbox address syntax
-
-          The sender's address was syntactically invalid.  This can
-          apply to any field in the address.
-
-       X.1.8   Bad sender's system address
-
-          The sender's system specified in the address does not exist
-          or is incapable of accepting return mail.  For domain names,
-          this means the address portion to the right of the "@" is
-          invalid for mail.
-
-   3.3 Mailbox Status
-
-       X.2.0   Other or undefined mailbox status
-
-          The mailbox exists, but something about the destination
-          mailbox has caused the sending of this DSN.
-
-       X.2.1   Mailbox disabled, not accepting messages
-
-          The mailbox exists, but is not accepting messages.  This may
-          be a permanent error if the mailbox will never be re-enabled
-          or a transient error if the mailbox is only temporarily
-          disabled.
-
-       X.2.2   Mailbox full
-
-          The mailbox is full because the user has exceeded a
-          per-mailbox administrative quota or physical capacity.  The
-          general semantics implies that the recipient can delete
-          messages to make more space available.  This code should be
-          used as a persistent transient failure.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 6]
-
-RFC 1893                Mail System Status Codes            January 1996
-
-
-       X.2.3   Message length exceeds administrative limit
-
-          A per-mailbox administrative message length limit has been
-          exceeded.  This status code should be used when the
-          per-mailbox message length limit is less than the general
-          system limit.  This code should be used as a permanent
-          failure.
-
-       X.2.4   Mailing list expansion problem
-
-          The mailbox is a mailing list address and the mailing list
-          was unable to be expanded.  This code may represent a
-          permanent failure or a persistent transient failure.
-
-   3.4 Mail system status
-
-       X.3.0   Other or undefined mail system status
-
-          The destination system exists and normally accepts mail, but
-          something about the system has caused the generation of this
-          DSN.
-
-       X.3.1   Mail system full
-
-          Mail system storage has been exceeded.  The general
-          semantics imply that the individual recipient may not be
-          able to delete material to make room for additional
-          messages.  This is useful only as a persistent transient
-          error.
-
-       X.3.2   System not accepting network messages
-
-          The host on which the mailbox is resident is not accepting
-          messages.  Examples of such conditions include an immanent
-          shutdown, excessive load, or system maintenance.  This is
-          useful for both permanent and permanent transient errors.
-
-       X.3.3   System not capable of selected features
-
-          Selected features specified for the message are not
-          supported by the destination system.  This can occur in
-          gateways when features from one domain cannot be mapped onto
-          the supported feature in another.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 7]
-
-RFC 1893                Mail System Status Codes            January 1996
-
-
-       X.3.4   Message too big for system
-
-          The message is larger than per-message size limit.  This
-          limit may either be for physical or administrative reasons.
-          This is useful only as a permanent error.
-
-       X.3.5 System incorrectly configured
-
-          The system is not configured in a manner which will permit
-          it to accept this message.
-
-   3.5 Network and Routing Status
-
-       X.4.0   Other or undefined network or routing status
-
-          Something went wrong with the networking, but it is not
-          clear what the problem is, or the problem cannot be well
-          expressed with any of the other provided detail codes.
-
-       X.4.1   No answer from host
-
-          The outbound connection attempt was not answered, either
-          because the remote system was busy, or otherwise unable to
-          take a call.  This is useful only as a persistent transient
-          error.
-
-       X.4.2   Bad connection
-
-          The outbound connection was established, but was otherwise
-          unable to complete the message transaction, either because
-          of time-out, or inadequate connection quality. This is
-          useful only as a persistent transient error.
-
-       X.4.3   Directory server failure
-
-          The network system was unable to forward the message,
-          because a directory server was unavailable.  This is useful
-          only as a persistent transient error.
-
-          The inability to connect to an Internet DNS server is one
-          example of the directory server failure error.
-
-       X.4.4   Unable to route
-
-          The mail system was unable to determine the next hop for the
-          message because the necessary routing information was
-          unavailable from the directory server. This is useful for
-          both permanent and persistent transient errors.
-
-
-
-Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 8]
-
-RFC 1893                Mail System Status Codes            January 1996
-
-
-          A DNS lookup returning only an SOA (Start of Administration)
-          record for a domain name is one example of the unable to
-          route error.
-
-       X.4.5   Mail system congestion
-
-          The mail system was unable to deliver the message because
-          the mail system was congested. This is useful only as a
-          persistent transient error.
-
-       X.4.6   Routing loop detected
-
-          A routing loop caused the message to be forwarded too many
-          times, either because of incorrect routing tables or a user
-          forwarding loop. This is useful only as a persistent
-          transient error.
-
-       X.4.7   Delivery time expired
-
-          The message was considered too old by the rejecting system,
-          either because it remained on that host too long or because
-          the time-to-live value specified by the sender of the
-          message was exceeded. If possible, the code for the actual
-          problem found when delivery was attempted should be returned
-          rather than this code.  This is useful only as a persistent
-          transient error.
-
-   3.6 Mail Delivery Protocol Status
-
-       X.5.0   Other or undefined protocol status
-
-          Something was wrong with the protocol necessary to deliver
-          the message to the next hop and the problem cannot be well
-          expressed with any of the other provided detail codes.
-
-       X.5.1   Invalid command
-
-          A mail transaction protocol command was issued which was
-          either out of sequence or unsupported.  This is useful only
-          as a permanent error.
-
-       X.5.2   Syntax error
-
-          A mail transaction protocol command was issued which could
-          not be interpreted, either because the syntax was wrong or
-          the command is unrecognized. This is useful only as a
-          permanent error.
-
-
-
-
-Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 9]
-
-RFC 1893                Mail System Status Codes            January 1996
-
-
-       X.5.3   Too many recipients
-
-          More recipients were specified for the message than could
-          have been delivered by the protocol.  This error should
-          normally result in the segmentation of the message into two,
-          the remainder of the recipients to be delivered on a
-          subsequent delivery attempt.  It is included in this list in
-          the event that such segmentation is not possible.
-
-       X.5.4   Invalid command arguments
-
-          A valid mail transaction protocol command was issued with
-          invalid arguments, either because the arguments were out of
-          range or represented unrecognized features. This is useful
-          only as a permanent error.
-
-       X.5.5   Wrong protocol version
-
-          A protocol version mis-match existed which could not be
-          automatically resolved by the communicating parties.
-
-   3.7 Message Content or Message Media Status
-
-       X.6.0   Other or undefined media error
-
-          Something about the content of a message caused it to be
-          considered undeliverable and the problem cannot be well
-          expressed with any of the other provided detail codes.
-
-       X.6.1   Media not supported
-
-          The media of the message is not supported by either the
-          delivery protocol or the next system in the forwarding path.
-          This is useful only as a permanent error.
-
-       X.6.2   Conversion required and prohibited
-
-          The content of the message must be converted before it can
-          be delivered and such conversion is not permitted.  Such
-          prohibitions may be the expression of the sender in the
-          message itself or the policy of the sending host.
-
-       X.6.3   Conversion required but not supported
-
-          The message content must be converted to be forwarded but
-          such conversion is not possible or is not practical by a
-          host in the forwarding path.  This condition may result when
-          an ESMTP gateway supports 8bit transport but is not able to
-
-
-
-Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                    [Page 10]
-
-RFC 1893                Mail System Status Codes            January 1996
-
-
-          downgrade the message to 7 bit as required for the next hop.
-
-       X.6.4   Conversion with loss performed
-
-          This is a warning sent to the sender when message delivery
-          was successfully but when the delivery required a conversion
-          in which some data was lost.  This may also be a permanant
-          error if the sender has indicated that conversion with loss
-          is prohibited for the message.
-
-       X.6.5   Conversion Failed
-
-          A conversion was required but was unsuccessful.  This may be
-          useful as a permanent or persistent temporary notification.
-
-   3.8 Security or Policy Status
-
-       X.7.0   Other or undefined security status
-
-          Something related to security caused the message to be
-          returned, and the problem cannot be well expressed with any
-          of the other provided detail codes.  This status code may
-          also be used when the condition cannot be further described
-          because of security policies in force.
-
-       X.7.1   Delivery not authorized, message refused
-
-          The sender is not authorized to send to the destination.
-          This can be the result of per-host or per-recipient
-          filtering.  This memo does not discuss the merits of any
-          such filtering, but provides a mechanism to report such.
-          This is useful only as a permanent error.
-
-       X.7.2   Mailing list expansion prohibited
-
-          The sender is not authorized to send a message to the
-          intended mailing list. This is useful only as a permanent
-          error.
-
-       X.7.3   Security conversion required but not possible
-
-          A conversion from one secure messaging protocol to another
-          was required for delivery and such conversion was not
-          possible. This is useful only as a permanent error.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                    [Page 11]
-
-RFC 1893                Mail System Status Codes            January 1996
-
-
-       X.7.4   Security features not supported
-
-          A message contained security features such as secure
-          authentication which could not be supported on the delivery
-          protocol. This is useful only as a permanent error.
-
-       X.7.5   Cryptographic failure
-
-          A transport system otherwise authorized to validate or
-          decrypt a message in transport was unable to do so because
-          necessary information such as key was not available or such
-          information was invalid.
-
-       X.7.6   Cryptographic algorithm not supported
-
-          A transport system otherwise authorized to validate or
-          decrypt a message was unable to do so because the necessary
-          algorithm was not supported.
-
-       X.7.7   Message integrity failure
-
-          A transport system otherwise authorized to validate a
-          message was unable to do so because the message was
-          corrupted or altered.  This may be useful as a permanent,
-          transient persistent, or successful delivery code.
-
-4.   References
-
-   [SMTP] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821,
-       USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1982.
-
-   [DSN] Moore, K., and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for
-       Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 1894, University of
-       Tennessee, Octel Network Services, January 1996.
-
-5.   Security Considerations
-
-   This document describes a status code system with increased
-   precision.  Use of these status codes may disclose additional
-   information about how an internal mail system is implemented beyond
-   that currently available.
-
-6.   Acknowledgments
-
-   The author wishes to offer special thanks to Harald Alvestrand, Marko
-   Kaittola, and Keith Moore for their extensive review and constructive
-   suggestions.
-
-
-
-
-Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                    [Page 12]
-
-RFC 1893                Mail System Status Codes            January 1996
-
-
-7.   Author's Address
-
-   Gregory M. Vaudreuil
-   Octel Network Services
-   17060 Dallas Parkway
-   Suite 214
-   Dallas, TX 75248-1905
-
-   Voice/Fax: +1-214-733-2722
-   EMail: Greg.Vaudreuil@Octel.com
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                    [Page 13]
-
-RFC 1893                Mail System Status Codes            January 1996
-
-
-8.   Appendix - Collected Status Codes
-
-       X.1.0     Other address status
-       X.1.1     Bad destination mailbox address
-       X.1.2     Bad destination system address
-       X.1.3     Bad destination mailbox address syntax
-       X.1.4     Destination mailbox address ambiguous
-       X.1.5     Destination mailbox address valid
-       X.1.6     Mailbox has moved
-       X.1.7     Bad sender's mailbox address syntax
-       X.1.8     Bad sender's system address
-
-       X.2.0     Other or undefined mailbox status
-       X.2.1     Mailbox disabled, not accepting messages
-       X.2.2     Mailbox full
-       X.2.3     Message length exceeds administrative limit.
-       X.2.4     Mailing list expansion problem
-
-       X.3.0     Other or undefined mail system status
-       X.3.1     Mail system full
-       X.3.2     System not accepting network messages
-       X.3.3     System not capable of selected features
-       X.3.4     Message too big for system
-
-       X.4.0     Other or undefined network or routing status
-       X.4.1     No answer from host
-       X.4.2     Bad connection
-       X.4.3     Routing server failure
-       X.4.4     Unable to route
-       X.4.5     Network congestion
-       X.4.6     Routing loop detected
-       X.4.7     Delivery time expired
-
-       X.5.0     Other or undefined protocol status
-       X.5.1     Invalid command
-       X.5.2     Syntax error
-       X.5.3     Too many recipients
-       X.5.4     Invalid command arguments
-       X.5.5     Wrong protocol version
-
-       X.6.0     Other or undefined media error
-       X.6.1     Media not supported
-       X.6.2     Conversion required and prohibited
-       X.6.3     Conversion required but not supported
-       X.6.4     Conversion with loss performed
-       X.6.5     Conversion failed
-
-
-
-
-
-Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                    [Page 14]
-
-RFC 1893                Mail System Status Codes            January 1996
-
-
-       X.7.0     Other or undefined security status
-       X.7.1     Delivery not authorized, message refused
-       X.7.2     Mailing list expansion prohibited
-       X.7.3     Security conversion required but not possible
-       X.7.4     Security features not supported
-       X.7.5     Cryptographic failure
-       X.7.6     Cryptographic algorithm not supported
-       X.7.7     Message integrity failure
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                    [Page 15]
-