分享
 
 
 

RFC1425 - SMTP Service Extensions

王朝other·作者佚名  2008-05-31
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

Network Working Group J. Klensin, WG Chair

Request for Comments: 1425 United Nations University

N. Freed, Editor

Innosoft International, Inc.

M. Rose

Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.

E. Stefferud

Network Management Associates, Inc.

D. Crocker

The Branch Office

February 1993

SMTP Service Extensions

Status of this Memo

This RFCspecifies an IAB standards track protocol for the Internet

community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.

Please refer to the current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol

Standards" for the standardization state and status of this protocol.

Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

1. Abstract

This memo defines a framework for extending the SMTP service by

defining a means whereby a server SMTP can inform a client SMTP as to

the service extensions it supports. Standard extensions to the SMTP

service are registered with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

(IANA). This framework does not require modification of existing

SMTP clients or servers unless the features of the service extensions

are to be requested or provided.

2. IntrodUCtion

The Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) [1] has provided a stable,

effective basis for the relay function of message transfer agents.

Although a decade old, SMTP has proven remarkably resilient.

Nevertheless, the need for a number of protocol extensions has become

evident. Rather than describing these extensions as separate and

haphazard entities, this document enhances SMTP in a straightforward

fashion that provides a framework in which all future extensions can

be built in a single consistent way.

3. Framework for SMTP Extensions

For the purpose of service extensions to SMTP, SMTP relays 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: it consists of an

originator address (to which error reports should be

directed); a delivery mode (e.g., deliver to recipient

mailboxes); and, one or more recipient addresses.

(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

according to RFC822 [2], whilst the body, if structured,

is defined according to MIME [3]. The content is textual

in nature, eXPressed using the US ASCII repertoire (ANSI

X3.4-1986). 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] is used to represent header

values outside the US ASCII repertoire, whilst still

encoding them using the US ASCII repertoire.

Although SMTP is widely and robustly deployed, some parts of the

Internet community might wish to extend the SMTP service. This memo

defines a means whereby both an extended SMTP client and server may

recognize each other as such and the server can inform the client as

to the service extensions that it supports.

It must be emphasized that any extension to the SMTP service should

not be considered lightly. SMTP's strength comes primarily from its

simplicity. Experience with many protocols has shown that:

protocols with few options tend towards ubiquity, whilst

protocols with many options tend towards obscurity.

This means that 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 framework for the extensions described in

this memo consists of:

(1) a new SMTP command (section 4)

(2) a registry of SMTP service extensions (section 5)

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

commands (section 6).

4. The EHLO command

A client SMTP supporting SMTP service extensions should start an SMTP

session by issuing the EHLO command instead of the HELO command. If

the SMTP server supports the SMTP service extensions it will give a

successful response (see section 4.1), a failure response (see 4.2),

or an error response (4.3). If the SMTP server does not support any

SMTP service extensions it will generate an error response (see

section 4.4).

The syntax for this command, using the ABNF notation of [2], is:

ehlo-cmd ::= "EHLO" SP domain CR LF

If successful, the server SMTP responds with code 250. On failure,

the server SMTP responds with code 550. On error, the server SMTP

responds with one of codes 500, 501, 502, 504, or 421.

This command is issued instead of the HELO command, and may be issued

at any time that a HELO command would be appropriate. That is, if

the EHLO command is issued, and a successful response is returned,

then a subsequent HELO or EHLO command will result in the server SMTP

replying with code 503. A client SMTP must not cache any information

returned if the EHLO command succeeds. That is, a client SMTP must

issue the EHLO command at the start of each SMTP session if

information about extended facilities is needed.

4.1. Successful response

If the server SMTP implements and is able to perform the EHLO

command, it will return code 250. This indicates that both the

server and client SMTP are in the initial state, that is, there is no

transaction in progress and all state tables and buffers are cleared.

Normally, this response 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 of [2],

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)>

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)>

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 begun in

RFC821.

The IANA maintains a registry of standard SMTP service extensions.

Associated with each such extension is a corresponding EHLO keyword

value. Each service extension registered with the IANA is defined by

a standards-track RFC, and such a definition includes:

(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; and,

(6) how support for the extension affects the behavior of a

server and client SMTP.

In addition, any EHLO keyword value that starts with an upper or

lower case "X" refers to a local SMTP service extension, which is

used through bilateral, rather than standardized, agreement. Keywords

beginning with "X" may not be used in a registered service extension.

Any keyword values presented in the EHLO response that do not begin

with "X" must correspond to an SMTP service extension registered with

IANA. A conforming server must not offer non "X" prefixed keyword

values that are not described in a registered extension.

Additional verbs are bound by the same rules as EHLO keywords;

specifically, verbs begining with "X" are local extensions that may

not be standardized and verbs not beginning with "X" must always be

registered.

4.2. Failure response

If for some reason the server SMTP is unable to list the service

extensions it supports, it will return code 554.

In the case of a failure response, the client SMTP should issue

either the HELO or QUIT command.

4.3. Error responses from extended servers

If the server SMTP recognizes the EHLO command, but the command

argument is unacceptable, it will return code 501.

If the server SMTP recognizes, but does not implement, the EHLO

command, it will return code 502.

If the server SMTP determines that the SMTP service is no longer

available (e.g., due to imminent system shutdown), it will return

code 421.

In the case of any error response, the client SMTP should issue

either the HELO or QUIT command.

4.4. Responses from servers without extensions

A server SMTP that conforms to RFC821 but does not support the

extensions specified here will not recognize the EHLO command and

will consequently return code 500, as specified in RFC821.

5. Initial IANA Registry

The IANA's initial registry of SMTP service extensions consists of

these entries:

Service Ext EHLO Keyword Parameters Verb Added Behavior

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

Send SEND none SEND defined in RFC821

Send or Mail SOML none SOML defined in RFC821

Send and Mail SAML none SAML defined in RFC821

Expand EXPN none EXPN defined in RFC821

Help HELP none HELP defined in RFC821

Turn TURN none TURN defined in RFC821

which correspond to those SMTP commands which are defined as optional

in [5]. (The mandatory SMTP commands, according to [5], are HELO,

MAIL, RCPT, DATA, RSET, VRFY, NOOP, and QUIT.)

6. MAIL FROM and RCPT TO Parameters

It is recognized that several of the extensions planned for SMTP will

make use of additional parameters associated with the MAIL FROM and

RCPT TO command. The syntax for these commands, again using the ABNF

notation of [2] as well as underlying definitions from [1], is:

esmtp-cmd ::= inner-esmtp-cmd [SP esmtp-parameters] CR LF

esmtp-parameters ::= esmtp-parameter *(SP esmtp-parameter)

esmtp-parameter ::= esmtp-keyword ["=" esmtp-value]

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

; syntax and values depend on esmtp-keyword

esmtp-value ::= 1*<any CHAR excluding "=", SP, and all

control characters (US ASCII 0-31

inclusive)>

; The following commands are extended to

; accept extended parameters.

inner-esmtp-cmd ::= ("MAIL FROM:<" reverse-path ">") /

("RCPT TO:<" forward-path ">")

All esmtp-keyword values must be registered as part of the IANA

registration process described above. This definition only provides

the framework for future extension; no extended MAIL FROM or RCPT TO

parameters are defined by this RFC.

6.1. Error responses

If the server SMTP does not recognize or cannot implement one or more

of the parameters associated with a particular MAIL FROM or RCPT TO

command, it will return code 555.

If for some reason the server is temporarily unable to accomodate one

or more of the parameters associated with a MAIL FROM or RCPT TO

command, and if the definition of the specific parameter does not

mandate the use of another code, it should return code 455.

Errors specific to particular parameters and their values will be

specified in the parameter's defining RFC.

7. Received: Header Field Annotation

SMTP servers are required to add an appropriate Received: field to

the headers of all messages they receive. A "with ESMTP" clause

should be added to this field when any SMTP service extensions are

used. "ESMTP" is hereby added to the list of standard protocol names

registered with IANA.

8. Usage Examples

(1) An interaction of the form:

S: <wait for connection on TCP port 25>

C: <open connection to server>

S: 220 dbc.mtview.ca.us SMTP service ready

C: EHLO ymir.claremont.edu

S: 250 dbc.mtview.ca.us says hello

...

indicates that the server SMTP implements only those SMTP

commands which are defined as mandatory in [5].

(2) In contrast, an interaction of the form:

S: <wait for connection on TCP port 25>

C: <open connection to server>

S: 220 dbc.mtview.ca.us SMTP service ready

C: EHLO ymir.claremont.edu

S: 250-dbc.mtview.ca.us says hello

S: 250-EXPN

S: 250-HELP

S: 250-8BITMIME

S: 250-XONE

S: 250 XVRB

...

indicates that the server SMTP also implements the SMTP

EXPN and HELP commands, one standard service extension

(8BITMIME), and two non-standard service extensions (XONE

and XVRB).

(3) Finally, a server that does not support SMTP service

extensions would act as follows:

S: <wait for connection on TCP port 25>

C: <open connection to server>

S: 220 dbc.mtview.ca.us SMTP service ready

C: EHLO ymir.claremont.edu

S: 500 Command not recognized: EHLO

...

The 500 response indicates that the server SMTP does not

implement the extensions specified here. The client

would normally send RSET to reset the connection, and,

after getting a successful reply, send a HELO command and

proceed as specified in RFC821.

9. Security Considerations

This RFCdoes not discuss security issues and is not believed to

raise any security issues not already endemic in electronic mail and

present in fully conforming implementations of RFC-821. It does

provide an announcement of server mail capabilities via the response

to the EHLO verb. However, all information provided by announcement

of any of the initial set of service extensions defined by this RFC

can be readily deduced by selective probing of the verbs required to

transport and deliver mail. The security implications of service

extensions described in other RFCs should be dealt with in those

RFCs.

10. Acknowledgements

This document represents a synthesis of the ideas of many people and

reactions to the ideas and proposals of others. Randall Atkinson,

Craig Everhart, Risto Kankkunen, and Greg Vaudreuil contributed ideas

and text sufficient to be considered co-authors. Other important

suggestions, text, or encouragement came from Harald Alvestrand, Jim

Conklin, Mark Crispin, Frank da Cruz, 'Olafur Gudmundsson, Per

Hedeland, Christian Huitma, Neil Katin, Eliot Lear, Harold A.

Miller, Dan Oscarsson, Julian Onions, Rayan Zachariassen, and the

contributions of the entire IETF SMTP Working Group. Of course, none

of the individuals are necessarily responsible for the combination of

ideas represented here. Indeed, in some cases, the response to a

particular criticism was to accept the problem identification but to

include an entirely different solution from the one originally

proposed.

11. References

[1] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC821,

USC/Information Sciences Institute, August 1982.

[2] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text

Messages", STD 11, RFC822, UDEL, August 1982.

[3] Borenstein, N., and N. Freed, "Multipurpose Internet Mail

Extensions", RFC1341, Bellcore, Innosoft, June 1992.

[4] Moore, K., "Representation of Non-ASCII Text in Internet Message

Headers", RFC1342, University of Tennessee, June 1992.

[5] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and

Support", STD 3, RFC1123, USC/Information Sciences Institute,

October 1989.

12. Chair, Editor, and Authors' Addresses

John Klensin, WG Chair

United Nations University

PO Box 500, Charles Street Station

Boston, MA 02114-0500 USA

Phone: +1 617 227 8747

Fax: +1 617 491 6266

Email: klensin@infoods.unu.edu

Ned Freed, Editor

Innosoft International, Inc.

250 West First Street, Suite 240

Claremont, CA 91711 USA

Phone: +1 909 624 7907

Fax: +1 909 621 5319

Email: ned@innosoft.com

Marshall T. Rose

Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.

420 Whisman Court

Moutain View, CA 94043-2186 USA

Phone: +1 415 968 1052

Fax: +1 415 968 2510

Email: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us

Einar A. Stefferud

Network Management Associates, Inc.

17301 Drey Lane

Huntington Beach, CA, 92647-5615 USA

Phone: +1 714 842 3711

Fax: +1 714 848 2091

Email: stef@nma.com

David H. Crocker

The Branch Office

USA

Email: dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
2023年上半年GDP全球前十五强
 百态   2023-10-24
美众议院议长启动对拜登的弹劾调查
 百态   2023-09-13
上海、济南、武汉等多地出现不明坠落物
 探索   2023-09-06
印度或要将国名改为“巴拉特”
 百态   2023-09-06
男子为女友送行,买票不登机被捕
 百态   2023-08-20
手机地震预警功能怎么开?
 干货   2023-08-06
女子4年卖2套房花700多万做美容:不但没变美脸,面部还出现变形
 百态   2023-08-04
住户一楼被水淹 还冲来8头猪
 百态   2023-07-31
女子体内爬出大量瓜子状活虫
 百态   2023-07-25
地球连续35年收到神秘规律性信号,网友:不要回答!
 探索   2023-07-21
全球镓价格本周大涨27%
 探索   2023-07-09
钱都流向了那些不缺钱的人,苦都留给了能吃苦的人
 探索   2023-07-02
倩女手游刀客魅者强控制(强混乱强眩晕强睡眠)和对应控制抗性的关系
 百态   2020-08-20
美国5月9日最新疫情:美国确诊人数突破131万
 百态   2020-05-09
荷兰政府宣布将集体辞职
 干货   2020-04-30
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案逍遥观:鹏程万里
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案神机营:射石饮羽
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案昆仑山:拔刀相助
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案天工阁:鬼斧神工
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案丝路古道:单枪匹马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:与虎谋皮
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:李代桃僵
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:指鹿为马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:小鸟依人
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:千金买邻
 干货   2019-11-12
 
推荐阅读
 
 
 
>>返回首頁<<
 
靜靜地坐在廢墟上,四周的荒凉一望無際,忽然覺得,淒涼也很美
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有