From fdec8d6cf10bfd061d98d8b790bb71985ed36e3a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Graham Wilson Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:40:04 +0000 Subject: 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 --- RFC/rfc1893.txt | 843 -------------------------------------------------------- 1 file changed, 843 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 RFC/rfc1893.txt (limited to 'RFC/rfc1893.txt') 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] - -- cgit v1.2.3