Network Working Group                                           K. Moore
Request for Comments: 3464                       University of Tennessee
Obsoletes: 1894                                             G. Vaudreuil
Category: Standards Track                            Lucent Technologies
                                                            January 2003
    An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications

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.

この文書は、インターネットコミュニティのためのインターネット標準トラックプロトコルを指定し、改善のための議論と提案を要求します。このプロトコルの標準化状態と状態への「インターネット公式プロトコル標準」(STD 1)の最新版を参照してください。このメモの配布は無制限です。

Copyright Notice


Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.




This memo defines a Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) content-type that may be used by a message transfer agent (MTA) or electronic mail gateway to report the result of an attempt to deliver a message to one or more recipients. This content-type is intended as a machine-processable replacement for the various types of delivery status notifications currently used in Internet electronic mail.


Because many messages are sent between the Internet and other messaging systems (such as X.400 or the so-called "Local Area Network (LAN)-based" systems), the Delivery Status Notification (DSN) protocol is designed to be useful in a multi-protocol messaging environment. To this end, the protocol described in this memo provides for the carriage of "foreign" addresses and error codes, in addition to those normally used in Internet mail. Additional attributes may also be defined to support "tunneling" of foreign notifications through Internet mail.


Table of Contents


   1. Introduction ....................................................3
     1.1 Purposes .....................................................3
     1.2 Requirements .................................................4
     1.3 Terminology ..................................................5
   2. Format of a Delivery Status Notification ........................7
     2.1 The message/delivery-status content-type .....................9
      2.1.1 General conventions for DSN fields ........................9
      2.1.2 "*-type" sub-fields .......................................9
      2.1.3 Lexical tokens imported from RFC 822 .....................10
     2.2 Per-Message DSN Fields ......................................11
      2.2.1 The Original-Envelope-Id field ...........................11
      2.2.2 The Reporting-MTA DSN field ..............................12
      2.2.3 The DSN-Gateway field ....................................13
      2.2.4 The Received-From-MTA DSN field ..........................14
      2.2.5 The Arrival-Date DSN field ...............................14
     2.3 Per-Recipient DSN fields ....................................14
      2.3.1 Original-Recipient field .................................15
      2.3.2 Final-Recipient field ....................................15
      2.3.3 Action field .............................................16
      2.3.4 Status field .............................................18
      2.3.5 Remote-MTA field .........................................19
      2.3.6 Diagnostic-Code field ....................................19
      2.3.7 Last-Attempt-Date field ..................................20
      2.3.8 final-log-id field .......................................20
      2.3.9 Will-Retry-Until field ...................................20
     2.4 Extension fields ............................................21
   3. Conformance and Usage Requirements .............................22
   4. Security Considerations ........................................23
     4.1 Forgery .....................................................23
     4.2 Confidentiality .............................................23
     4.3 Non-Repudiation .............................................25
   5. References .....................................................25
   6. Acknowledgments ................................................26
   Appendix A - Collected Grammar ....................................27
   Appendix B - Guidelines for Gatewaying DSNS .......................29
     Gatewaying from other mail systems to DSNs ......................29
     Gatewaying from DSNs to other mail systems ......................30
   Appendix C - Guidelines for Use of DSNS By Mailing List Exploders .30
   Appendix D - IANA Registration Forms for DSN Types ................31
     IANA registration form for address-type .........................32
     IANA registration form for diagnostic-type ......................32
     IANA registration form for MTA-name-type ........................32
   Appendix E - Examples .............................................33
     Simple DSN ......................................................34
     Multi-Recipient DSN .............................................35
     DSN from gateway to foreign system ..............................36
     Delayed DSN .....................................................37
   Appendix F - Changes from RFC 1894 ................................38
   Authors' Addresses ................................................39
   Full Copyright Statement ..........................................40
1. Introduction
1. はじめに

This memo defines a Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) [MIME1] content-type for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs). A DSN can be used to notify the sender of a message of any of several conditions: failed delivery, delayed delivery, successful delivery, or the gatewaying of a message into an environment that may not support DSNs. The "message/delivery-status" content-type defined herein is intended for use within the framework of the "multipart/report" content type defined in [REPORT].

このメモは、配信状態通知(DSN)のための多目的インターネットメール拡張(MIME)[MIME1]コンテンツタイプを定義します。 DSNは、いくつかの条件のいずれかのメッセージの送信者に通知するために使用することができる:失敗した送達、遅延送達、成功した配達、またはDSNをサポートしていない場合があり環境へのメッセージのゲートウェイ。本明細書で定義される「メッセージ/配送状況」コンテンツ・タイプ[REPORT]で定義された「マルチパート/レポート」コンテンツタイプのフレームワーク内で使用するために意図されています。

This memo defines only the format of the notifications. An extension to the Simple Message Transfer Protocol (SMTP) [SMTP] to fully support such notifications is the subject of a separate memo [DRPT].


Document Conventions


The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

この文書のキーワード "MUST"、 "MUST NOT"、 "REQUIRED"、、、、 "べきではない" "べきである" "ないもの" "ものとし"、 "推奨"、 "MAY"、および "OPTIONAL" はありますBCP 14、RFC 2119 [RFC2119]に記載されているように解釈されます。

1.1 Purposes

The DSNs defined in this memo are expected to serve several purposes:


(a) Inform human beings of the status of message delivery processing, as well as the reasons for any delivery problems or outright failures, in a manner that is largely independent of human language and media;


(b) Allow mail user agents to keep track of the delivery status of messages sent, by associating returned DSNs with earlier message transmissions;


(c) Allow mailing list exploders to automatically maintain their subscriber lists when delivery attempts repeatedly fail;


(d) Convey delivery and non-delivery notifications resulting from attempts to deliver messages to "foreign" mail systems via a gateway;


(e) Allow "foreign" notifications to be tunneled through a MIME-capable message system and back into the original messaging system that issued the original notification, or even to a third messaging system;


(f) Allow language-independent and medium-independent, yet reasonably precise, indications of the reason for the failure of a message to be delivered; and


(g) Provide sufficient information to remote MTA maintainers (via "trouble tickets") so that they can understand the nature of reported errors. This feature is used in the case that failure to deliver a message is due to the malfunction of a remote MTA and the sender wants to report the problem to the remote MTA administrator.


1.2 Requirements

These purposes place the following constraints on the notification protocol:


(a) It must be readable by humans as well as being machine-parsable.


(b) It must provide enough information to allow message senders (or the user agents) to unambiguously associate a DSN with the message that was sent and the original recipient address for which the DSN is issued (if such information is available), even if the message was forwarded to another recipient address.


(c) It must be able to preserve the reason for the success or failure of a delivery attempt in a remote messaging system, using the "language" (mailbox addresses and status codes) of that remote system.


(d) It must also be able to describe the reason for the success or failure of a delivery attempt, independent of any particular human language or of the "language" of any particular mail system.


(e) It must preserve enough information to allow the maintainer of a remote MTA to understand (and if possible, reproduce) the conditions that caused a delivery failure at that MTA.


(f) For any notifications issued by foreign mail systems, which are translated by a mail gateway to the DSN format, the DSN must preserve the "type" of the foreign addresses and error codes, so that these may be correctly interpreted by gateways.


A DSN contains a set of per-message fields that identify the message and the transaction during which the message was submitted, along with other fields that apply to all delivery attempts described by the DSN. The DSN also includes a set of per-recipient fields to convey the result of the attempt to deliver the message to each of one or more recipients.

DSNは、メッセージと、メッセージがDSNによって記載された全ての配達の試みに適用され、他のフィールドと共に、提出された時にトランザクションを識別し、メッセージごとのフィールドのセットを含みます。 DSNは、1人のまたは複数の受信者のそれぞれにメッセージを配信しようとする試みの結果を伝える受信者ごとのフィールドのセットを含みます。

1.3 Terminology

A message may be transmitted through several message transfer agents (MTAs) on its way to a recipient. For a variety of reasons, recipient addresses may be rewritten during this process, so each MTA may potentially see a different recipient address. Depending on the purpose for which a DSN is used, different formats of a particular recipient address will be needed.

メッセージは、受信者への途中でいくつかのメッセージ転送エージェント(MTA)を介して送信されても​​よいです。様々な理由のために、受信者のアドレスは、このプロセスの間に書き換えることができるので、各MTAは、潜在的に異なる受信者のアドレスを参照することができます。 DSNが使用される目的に応じて、特定の受信者のアドレスの異なるフォーマットが必要になります。

Several DSN fields are defined in terms of the view from a particular MTA in the transmission. The MTAs are assigned the following names:

いくつかのDSNフィールドは、送信中の特定のMTAからのビューで定義されています。 MTAは、次の名前を割り当てられています。

(a) Original MTA


       The Original MTA is the one to which the message is submitted for
       delivery by the sender of the message.

(b) Reporting MTA


       For any DSN, the Reporting MTA is the one which is reporting the
       results of delivery attempts described in the DSN.

If the delivery attempts described occurred in a "foreign" (non-Internet) mail system, and the DSN was produced by translating the foreign notice into DSN format, the Reporting MTA will still identify the "foreign" MTA where the delivery attempts occurred.


(c) Received-From MTA


       The Received-From MTA is the MTA from which the Reporting MTA
       received the message, and accepted responsibility for delivery of
       the message.

(d) Remote MTA


       If an MTA determines that it must relay a message to one or more
       recipients, but the message cannot be transferred to its "next
       hop" MTA, or if the "next hop" MTA refuses to accept
       responsibility for delivery of the message to one or more of its
       intended recipients, the relaying MTA may need to issue a DSN on
       behalf of the recipients for whom the message cannot be delivered.  In this case the relaying MTA is the Reporting MTA,
       and the "next hop" MTA is known as the Remote MTA.

Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the various MTAs.


+-----+    +--------+           +---------+    +---------+      +------+
|     |    |        |           |Received-|    |         |      |      |
|     | => |Original| => ... => |  From   | => |Reporting| ===> |Remote|
| user|    |   MTA  |           |   MTA   |    |   MTA   | <No! |  MTA |
|agent|    +--------+           +---------+    +----v----+      +------+
|     |                                             |
|     | <-------------------------------------------+
+-----+      (DSN returned to sender by Reporting MTA)

Figure 1. Original, Received-From, Reporting and Remote MTAs


Each of these MTAs may provide information that is useful in a DSN:


+ Ideally, the DSN will contain the address of each recipient as originally specified to the Original MTA by the sender of the message.


This version of the address is needed (rather than a forwarding address or some modified version of the original address) so that the sender may compare the recipient address in the DSN with the address in the sender's records (e.g., an address book for an individual, the list of subscribers for a mailing list) and take appropriate action.


Similarly, the DSN might contain an "envelope identifier" that was known to both the sender's user agent and the Original MTA at the time of message submission, and which, if included in the DSN, can be used by the sender to keep track of which messages were or were not delivered.


+ If a message was (a) forwarded to a different address than that specified by the sender, (b) gatewayed to a different mail system than that used by the sender, or (c) subjected to address rewriting during transmission, the "final" form of the recipient address (i.e., the one seen by the Reporting MTA) will be different than the original (sender-specified) recipient address. Just as the sender's user agent (or the sender) prefers the original recipient address, so the "final" address is needed when reporting a problem to the postmaster of the site where message delivery failed, because only the final recipient address will allow her to reproduce the conditions that caused the failure.


+ A "failed" DSN should contain the most accurate explanation for the delivery failure that is available. For ease of interpretation, this information should be a format that is independent of the mail transport system that issued the DSN. However, if a foreign error code is translated into some transport-independent format, some information may be lost. It is therefore desirable to provide both a transport-independent status code and a mechanism for reporting transport-specific codes. Depending on the circumstances that produced delivery failure, the transport-specific code might be obtained from either the Reporting MTA or the Remote MTA.

+ Aは、DSNが利用可能な配信障害の最も正確な説明が含まれている必要があり、「失敗しました」。解釈を容易にするため、この情報はDSNを発行したメール輸送システムとは独立してフォーマットする必要があります。外国のエラーコードは、いくつかのトランスポートに依存しない形式に変換される場合は、一部の情報が失われてもよいです。トランスポート独立ステータスコードとトランスポート固有のコードを報告するための機構の両方を提供することが望ましいです。配信障害を生じた状況に応じて、トランスポート固有のコードは、Reporting MTAまたはリモートMTAのいずれかから得られるであろう。

Since different values for "recipient address" and "delivery status code" are needed according to the circumstance in which a DSN will be used, and since the MTA that issues the DSN cannot anticipate those circumstances, the DSN format described here may contain both the original and final forms of a recipient address, and both a transport-independent and a transport-specific indication of delivery status.


Extension fields may also be added by the Reporting MTA as needed to provide additional information for use in a trouble ticket or to preserve information for tunneling of foreign delivery reports through Internet DSNs.


The Original, Reporting, and Remote MTAs may exist in very different environments and use dissimilar transport protocols, MTA names, address formats, and delivery status codes. DSNs therefore do not assume any particular format for mailbox addresses, MTA names, or transport-specific status codes. Instead, the various DSN fields that carry such quantities consist of a "type" sub-field followed by a sub-field whose contents are ordinary text characters, and the format of which is indicated by the "type" sub-field. This allows a DSN to convey these quantities regardless of format.

オリジナル、レポート、およびリモートのMTAは非常に異なる環境に存在し、異なるトランスポートプロトコル、MTA名前、アドレス形式、および配信ステータスコードを使用することができます。 DSNはそのためのメールボックスアドレス、MTA名、またはトランスポート固有のステータスコードについての任意の特定の形式を負いません。代わりに、そのような量を運ぶ様々なDSNフィールドは、その内容が通常のテキスト文字であり、「タイプ」サブフィールドによって示されている形式のサブフィールドに続く「タイプ」サブフィールドから成ります。これは、DSNは、形式にかかわらず、これらの量を伝えることができます。

2. Format of a Delivery Status Notification

A DSN is a MIME message with a top-level content-type of multipart/report (defined in [REPORT]). When a multipart/report content is used to transmit a DSN:


(a) The report-type parameter of the multipart/report content is "delivery-status".


(b) The first component of the multipart/report contains a human-readable explanation of the DSN, as described in [REPORT].


(c) The second component of the multipart/report is of content-type message/delivery-status, described in section 2.1 of this document.


(d) If the original message or a portion of the message is to be returned to the sender, it appears as the third component of the multipart/report.


NOTE: For delivery status notifications gatewayed from foreign systems, the headers of the original message may not be available. In this case the third component of the DSN may be omitted, or it may contain "simulated" RFC 822 headers that contain equivalent information. In particular, it is very desirable to preserve the subject, date, and message-id (or equivalent) fields from the original message.

注:配信状態通知は外部システムからゲートウェイ処理のために、元のメッセージのヘッダが利用可能ではないかもしれません。この場合、DSNの第三の構成要素を省略してもよいか、同等の情報を含む「模擬」RFC 822ヘッダを含んでいてもよいです。特に、元のメッセージの件名、日付、およびメッセージID(または同等の)フィールドを保持することが非常に望ましいです。

The DSN MUST be addressed (in both the message header and the transport envelope) to the return address from the transport envelope which accompanied the original message for which the DSN was generated. (For a message that arrived via SMTP, the envelope return address appears in the MAIL FROM command.)

DSNは、DSNが生成された元のメッセージを伴ったトランスポート・エンベロープからの戻りアドレスに(メッセージヘッダーとトランスポート・エンベロープの両方で)に対処しなければなりません。 (SMTP経由で到着したメッセージの場合は、封筒のリターンアドレスは、MAIL FROMコマンドで表示されます。)

The From field of the message header of the DSN SHOULD contain the address of a human who is responsible for maintaining the mail system at the Reporting MTA site (e.g., Postmaster), so that a reply to the DSN will reach that person. Exception: if a DSN is translated from a foreign delivery report, and the gateway performing the translation cannot determine the appropriate address, the From field of the DSN MAY be the address of a human who is responsible for maintaining the gateway.


The envelope sender address of the DSN SHOULD be chosen to ensure that no delivery status reports will be issued in response to the DSN itself, and MUST be chosen so that DSNs will not generate mail loops. Whenever an SMTP transaction is used to send a DSN, the MAIL FROM command MUST use a NULL return address, i.e., "MAIL FROM:<>".

DSNのエンベロープ送信者アドレスには配送状態レポートは、DSN自体に応答して発行されないことを確実にするために選択しなければならない、とのDSNは、メールループを生成しないように選ばなければなりません。 SMTPトランザクションは、DSNを送信するために使用されるたびに、MAIL FROMコマンドは、すなわち、NULLの戻りアドレスを使用しなければならない「MAIL FROM:<>」。

A particular DSN describes the delivery status for exactly one message. However, an MTA MAY report on the delivery status for several recipients of the same message in a single DSN. Due to the nature of the mail transport system (where responsibility for delivery of a message to its recipients may be split among several MTAs, and delivery to any particular recipient may be delayed), multiple DSNs may still be issued in response to a single message submission.

特定のDSNは、1つのメッセージの配信状況を説明しています。しかし、MTAは、単一のDSNで同じメッセージを複数の受信者の配信状況を報告するかもしれません。 (その受信者へのメッセージの配信の責任は、いくつかのMTA間で分割することができる、任意の特定の受信者への配信が遅延してもよい)メール転送システムの性質のために、複数のDSNは依然として単一のメッセージに応答して発行されてもよいです提出。

2.1 The message/delivery-status content-type

The message/delivery-status content-type is defined as follows:


MIME type name: message MIME subtype name: delivery-status Optional parameters: none Encoding considerations: "7bit" encoding is sufficient and MUST be used to maintain readability when viewed by non-MIME mail readers. Security considerations: discussed in section 4 of this memo.


The message/delivery-status report type for use in the multipart/report is "delivery-status".


The body of a message/delivery-status consists of one or more "fields" formatted according to the ABNF of RFC 822 header "fields" (see [RFC822]). The per-message fields appear first, followed by a blank line. Following the per-message fields are one or more groups of per-recipient fields. Each group of per-recipient fields is preceded by a blank line. Using the ABNF of RFC 822, the syntax of the message/delivery-status content is as follows:

メッセージ/配送状況の本体は、RFC 822ヘッダ「フィールド」のABNFに従ってフォーマットされた1つ以上の「フィールド」から成る([RFC822]参照)。メッセージごとのフィールドは、空白行に続いて、最初に表示されます。メッセージごとのフィールドに続いて、受信者ごとのフィールドの1つ以上のグループです。受信者ごとのフィールドの各グループは、空白行が先行しています。次のようにRFC 822のABNFを使用して、メッセージ/配送状況コンテンツの構文は次のとおりです。

           delivery-status-content =  per-message-fields 1*
                                     ( CRLF per-recipient-fields )

The per-message fields are described in section 2.2. The per-recipient fields are described in section 2.3.


2.1.1 General conventions for DSN fields

Since these fields are defined according to the rules of RFC 822, the same conventions for continuation lines and comments apply. Notification fields may be continued onto multiple lines by beginning each additional line with a SPACE or HTAB. Text that appears in parentheses is considered a comment and not part of the contents of that notification field. Field names are case-insensitive, so the names of notification fields may be spelled in any combination of upper and lower case letters. Comments in DSN fields may use the "encoded-word" construct defined in [MIME3].

これらのフィールドは、RFC 822の規則に従って定義されているので、継続行とコメントに対して同じ規則が当てはまります。通知フィールドは、SPACEまたはHTAB各追加の行を開始することにより、複数の行に継続することができます。カッコ内に表示されるテキストはコメントしていないという通知フィールドの内容の一部とみなされます。フィールド名は大文字と小文字を区別しないので、通知フィールドの名前は、大文字と小文字の任意の組み合わせで綴られてもよいです。 DSNフィールドのコメントは、「符号化されたワード」[MIME3]で定義された構築物を使用することができます。

2.1.2 "*-type" sub-fields

Several DSN fields consist of a "-type" sub-field, followed by a semicolon, followed by "*text". For these fields, the keyword used in the address-type, diagnostic-type, or MTA-name-type sub-field indicates the expected format of the address, status-code, or MTA-name which follows.


The "-type" sub-fields are defined as follows:


(a) An "address-type" specifies the format of a mailbox address. For example, Internet mail addresses use the "rfc822" address-type.


address-type = atom


(b) A "diagnostic-type" specifies the format of a status code. For example, when a DSN field contains a reply code reported via the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol [SMTP], the "smtp" diagnostic-type is used.


diagnostic-type = atom


(c) An "MTA-name-type" specifies the format of an MTA name. For example, for an SMTP server on an Internet host, the MTA name is the domain name of that host, and the "dns" MTA-name-type is used.


mta-name-type = atom


Values for address-type, diagnostic-type, and MTA-name-type are case-insensitive. Thus address-type values of "RFC822" and "rfc822" are equivalent.


The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) will maintain a registry of address-types, diagnostic-types, and MTA-name-types, along with descriptions of the meanings and acceptable values of each, or a reference to one or more specifications that provide such descriptions. (The "rfc822" address-type, "smtp" diagnostic-type, and "dns" MTA-name-type are defined in [DRPT].) Registration forms for address-type, diagnostic-type, and MTA-name-type appear in Appendix D.

インターネット割り当て番号機関(IANA)が提供する1つ以上の仕様の意味の説明とそれぞれの可能な値、または参照と一緒に、アドレスタイプ、診断・タイプ、およびMTA-名タイプのレジストリを維持しますような説明。 ([DRPT]に「RFC822」アドレス・タイプ、「SMTP」診断型、および「DNS」MTA名型が定義されている。)アドレスタイプのための登録フォーム、診断タイプ、およびMTA名型付録D.に表示されます

IANA will not accept registrations for any address-type, diagnostic-type, or MTA-name-type name that begins with "X-". These type names are reserved for experimental use.


2.1.3 Lexical tokens imported from

The following lexical tokens, defined in [RFC822], are used in the ABNF grammar for DSNs: atom, CHAR, comment, CR, CRLF, DIGIT, LF, linear-white-space, SPACE, text. The date-time lexical token is defined in [HOSTREQ].


2.2 Per-Message DSN Fields

Some fields of a DSN apply to all of the delivery attempts described by that DSN. At most, these fields may appear once in any DSN. These fields are used to correlate the DSN with the original message transaction and to provide additional information which may be useful to gateways.


          per-message-fields =
                [ original-envelope-id-field CRLF ]
                reporting-mta-field CRLF
                [ dsn-gateway-field CRLF ]
                [ received-from-mta-field CRLF ]
                [ arrival-date-field CRLF ]
                *( extension-field CRLF )
2.2.1 The Original-Envelope-Id field

The optional Original-Envelope-Id field contains an "envelope identifier" that uniquely identifies the transaction during which the message was submitted, and was either (a) specified by the sender and supplied to the sender's MTA, or (b) generated by the sender's MTA and made available to the sender when the message was submitted. Its purpose is to allow the sender (or her user agent) to associate the returned DSN with the specific transaction in which the message was sent.


If such an envelope identifier was present in the envelope that accompanied the message when it arrived at the Reporting MTA, it SHOULD be supplied in the Original-Envelope-Id field of any DSNs issued as a result of an attempt to deliver the message. Except when a DSN is issued by the sender's MTA, an MTA MUST NOT supply this field unless there is an envelope-identifier field in the envelope that accompanied this message on its arrival at the Reporting MTA.


The Original-Envelope-Id field is defined as follows:


           original-envelope-id-field =
                  "Original-Envelope-Id" ":" envelope-id

envelope-id = *text

封筒-ID = *テキスト

There may be at most one Original-Envelope-Id field per DSN.


The envelope-id is CASE-SENSITIVE. The DSN MUST preserve the original case and spelling of the envelope-id.

封筒-IDは、大文字と小文字が区別されます。 DSN封筒-IDのオリジナルのケースと綴りを保持しなければなりません。

         NOTE: The Original-Envelope-Id is NOT the same as the
         Message-Id from the message header.  The Message-Id identifies
         the content of the message, while the Original-Envelope-Id
         identifies the transaction in which the message is sent.
2.2.2 The Reporting-MTA DSN field
報告-MTA DSNフィールドは、2.2.2
         reporting-mta-field =
               "Reporting-MTA" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name

mta-name = *text

MTA名= *テキスト

The Reporting-MTA field is defined as follows:


A DSN describes the results of attempts to deliver, relay, or gateway a message to one or more recipients. In all cases, the Reporting-MTA is the MTA that attempted to perform the delivery, relay, or gateway operation described in the DSN. This field is required.


Note that if an SMTP client attempts to relay a message to an SMTP server and receives an error reply to a RCPT command, the client is responsible for generating the DSN, and the client's domain name will appear in the Reporting-MTA field. (The server's domain name will appear in the Remote-MTA field.)

SMTPクライアントがSMTPサーバーにメッセージを中継しようとするとRCPTコマンドにエラー応答を受信した場合、クライアントはDSNを生成するための責任があることに注意してください、そしてクライアントのドメイン名は、Reporting-MTAフィールドに表示されます。 (サーバーのドメイン名は、リモートMTAフィールドに表示されます。)

Note that the Reporting-MTA is not necessarily the MTA which actually issued the DSN. For example, if an attempt to deliver a message outside of the Internet resulted in a non-delivery notification which was gatewayed back into Internet mail, the Reporting-MTA field of the resulting DSN would be that of the MTA that originally reported the delivery failure, not that of the gateway which converted the foreign notification into a DSN. See Figure 2.


 sender's environment                            recipient's environment
 ............................ ..........................................
                            : :
                        (1) : :                             (2)
   +-----+  +--------+  +--------+  +---------+  +---------+   +------+
   |     |  |        |  |        |  |Received-|  |         |   |      |
   |     |=>|Original|=>|        |->|  From   |->|Reporting|-->|Remote|
   | user|  |   MTA  |  |        |  |   MTA   |  |   MTA   |<No|  MTA |
   |agent|  +--------+  |Gateway |  +---------+  +----v----+   +------+
   |     |              |        |                    |
   |     | <============|        |<-------------------+
   +-----+              |        |(4)                (3)
                            : :
 ...........................: :.........................................

Figure 2. DSNs in the presence of gateways

ゲートウェイの存在下で2 DSNを図

(1) message is gatewayed into recipient's environment (2) attempt to relay message fails (3) reporting-mta (in recipient's environment) returns non-delivery notification (4) gateway translates foreign notification into a DSN


The mta-name portion of the Reporting-MTA field is formatted according to the conventions indicated by the mta-name-type sub-field. If an MTA functions as a gateway between dissimilar mail environments and thus is known by multiple names depending on the environment, the mta-name sub-field SHOULD contain the name used by the environment from which the message was accepted by the Reporting-MTA.


Because the exact spelling of an MTA name may be significant in a particular environment, MTA names are CASE-SENSITIVE.


2.2.3 The DSN-Gateway field

The DSN-Gateway field indicates the name of the gateway or MTA that translated a foreign (non-Internet) delivery status notification into this DSN. This field MUST appear in any DSN that was translated by a gateway from a foreign system into DSN format, and MUST NOT appear otherwise.


dsn-gateway-field = "DSN-Gateway" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name

DSN-ゲートウェイフィールド= "DSNゲートウェイ" ":" MTA名型 ";" MTA名

For gateways into Internet mail, the MTA-name-type will normally be "dns", and the mta-name will be the Internet domain name of the gateway.


2.2.4 The Received-From-MTA DSN field
受信から-MTA DSNフィールドは、2.2.4

The optional Received-From-MTA field indicates the name of the MTA from which the message was received.


        received-from-mta-field =
             "Received-From-MTA" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name

If the message was received from an Internet host via SMTP, the contents of the mta-name sub-field SHOULD be the Internet domain name supplied in the HELO or EHLO command, and the network address used by the SMTP client SHOULD be included as a comment enclosed in parentheses. (In this case, the MTA-name-type will be "dns".)

メッセージは、SMTPを介して、インターネットホストから受信された場合、MTA名のサブフィールドの内容として含まれるべきでHELOまたはEHLOコマンドに供給されるインターネットドメイン名、およびSMTPクライアントによって使用されるネットワークアドレスでなければなりません括弧で囲まれたコメント。 (この場合には、MTA名型は、「DNS」であろう。)

The mta-name portion of the Received-From-MTA field is formatted according to the conventions indicated by the MTA-name-type sub-field.


Since case is significant in some mail systems, the exact spelling, including case, of the MTA name SHOULD be preserved.


2.2.5 The Arrival-Date DSN field

The optional Arrival-Date field indicates the date and time at which the message arrived at the Reporting MTA. If the Last-Attempt-Date field is also provided in a per-recipient field, this can be used to determine the interval between when the message arrived at the Reporting MTA and when the report was issued for that recipient.


arrival-date-field = "Arrival-Date" ":" date-time


The date and time are expressed in RFC 822 'date-time' format, as modified by [HOSTREQ]. Numeric timezones ([+/-]HHMM format) MUST be used.

【HOSTREQ]によって修正された日付と時刻は、RFC 822「日時」の形式で表現されます。数値タイムゾーン([+/-] HHMM形式)を使用しなければなりません。

2.3 Per-Recipient DSN fields

A DSN contains information about attempts to deliver a message to one or more recipients. The delivery information for any particular recipient is contained in a group of contiguous per-recipient fields. Each group of per-recipient fields is preceded by a blank line.


The syntax for the group of per-recipient fields is as follows:


        per-recipient-fields =
              [ original-recipient-field CRLF ]
              final-recipient-field CRLF
              action-field CRLF
              status-field CRLF
              [ remote-mta-field CRLF ]
              [ diagnostic-code-field CRLF ]
              [ last-attempt-date-field CRLF ]
              [ final-log-id-field CRLF ]
              [ will-retry-until-field CRLF ]
              *( extension-field CRLF )
2.3.1 Original-Recipient field

The Original-Recipient field indicates the original recipient address as specified by the sender of the message for which the DSN is being issued.


       original-recipient-field =
             "Original-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-address

generic-address = *text

一般的なアドレス= *テキスト

The address-type field indicates the type of the original recipient address. If the message originated within the Internet, the address-type field will normally be "rfc822", and the address will be according to the syntax specified in [RFC822]. The value "unknown" should be used if the Reporting MTA cannot determine the type of the original recipient address from the message envelope.


This field is optional. It should be included only if the sender-specified recipient address was present in the message envelope, such as by the SMTP extensions defined in [DRPT]. This address is the same as that provided by the sender and can be used to automatically correlate DSN reports and message transactions.


2.3.2 Final-Recipient field

The Final-Recipient field indicates the recipient for which this set of per-recipient fields applies. This field MUST be present in each set of per-recipient data.


The syntax of the field is as follows:


         final-recipient-field =
             "Final-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-address

The generic-address sub-field of the Final-Recipient field MUST contain the mailbox address of the recipient (from the transport envelope), as it was when the Reporting MTA accepted the message for delivery.


The Final-Recipient address may differ from the address originally provided by the sender, because it may have been transformed during forwarding and gatewaying into a totally unrecognizable mess. However, in the absence of the optional Original-Recipient field, the Final-Recipient field and any returned content may be the only information available with which to correlate the DSN with a particular message submission.


The address-type sub-field indicates the type of address expected by the reporting MTA in that context. Recipient addresses obtained via SMTP will normally be of address-type "rfc822".

アドレスタイプサブフィールドは、その文脈で報告MTAが期待アドレスのタイプを示しています。 SMTP経由で取得した受信者のアドレスは通常のアドレス型「RFC822」のものであろう。

NOTE: The Reporting MTA is not expected to ensure that the address actually conforms to the syntax conventions of the address-type. Instead, it MUST report exactly the address received in the envelope, unless that address contains characters such as CR or LF which are not allowed in a DSN field.


Since mailbox addresses (including those used in the Internet) may be case sensitive, the case of alphabetic characters in the address MUST be preserved.


2.3.3 Action field
2.3.3 Actionフィールド

The Action field indicates the action performed by the Reporting-MTA as a result of its attempt to deliver the message to this recipient address. This field MUST be present for each recipient named in the DSN.


The syntax for the action-field is:


action-field = "Action" ":" action-value


action-value = "failed" / "delayed" / "delivered" / "relayed" / "expanded"


The action-value may be spelled in any combination of upper and lower case characters.


"failed" indicates that the message could not be delivered to the recipient. The Reporting MTA has abandoned any attempts to deliver the message to this recipient. No further notifications should be expected.


"delayed" indicates that the Reporting MTA has so far been unable to deliver or relay the message, but it will continue to attempt to do so. Additional notification messages may be issued as the message is further delayed or successfully delivered, or if delivery attempts are later abandoned.


"delivered" indicates that the message was successfully delivered to the recipient address specified by the sender, which includes "delivery" to a mailing list exploder. It does not indicate that the message has been read. This is a terminal state and no further DSN for this recipient should be expected.


"relayed" indicates that the message has been relayed or gatewayed into an environment that does not accept responsibility for generating DSNs upon successful delivery. This action-value SHOULD NOT be used unless the sender has requested notification of successful delivery for this recipient.


"expanded" indicates that the message has been successfully delivered to the recipient address as specified by the sender, and forwarded by the Reporting-MTA beyond that destination to multiple additional recipient addresses. An action-value of "expanded" differs from "delivered" in that "expanded" is not a terminal state. Further "failed" and/or "delayed" notifications may be provided.

「拡大」は、送信者によって指定され、かつ複数の追加の受信者のアドレスにその先を越えて報告-MTAによって転送されたメッセージが正常に受信者のアドレスに配信されたことを示しています。 「展開」のアクション値は、「展開」の「送達」とは異なる端末状態ではありません。また、「失敗した」および/または「遅延」の通知を提供することができます。

Using the terms "mailing list" and "alias" as defined in [DRPT], section 7.2.7: An action-value of "expanded" is only to be used when the message is delivered to a multiple-recipient "alias". An action-value of "expanded" SHOULD NOT be used with a DSN issued on delivery of a message to a "mailing list".

用語「メーリングリスト」と[DRPT]で定義されるように、「エイリアス」を使用して、セクション7.2.7:メッセージが複数の受信者「エイリアス」に送達されたときに「拡張」のアクション値にのみ使用されるべきです。 「拡大」の行動価値は、「メーリングリスト」へのメッセージの配信に発行されたDSNには使用しないでください。

       NOTE ON ACTION VS. STATUS CODES: Although the 'action' field
       might seem to be redundant with the 'status' field, this is not
       the case.  In particular, a "temporary failure" ("4") status code
       could be used with an action-value of either "delayed" or
       "failed".  For example, assume that an SMTP client repeatedly
       tries to relay a message to the mail exchanger for a recipient,
       but fails because a query to a domain name server timed out.

After a few hours, it might issue a "delayed" DSN to inform the sender that the message had not yet been delivered. After a few days, the MTA might abandon its attempt to deliver the message and return a "failed" DSN. The status code (which would begin with a "4" to indicate "temporary failure") would be the same for both DSNs.

数時間後には、メッセージがまだ配信されていなかったことを送信者に通知するために「遅延」DSNを発行することがあります。数日後、MTAはメッセージを配信し、「失敗した」DSNを返すためにその試みを放棄する可能性があります。 (「一時的な失敗」を示すために、「4」で始まるであろう)ステータスコードは、両方のDSNのために同じです。

Another example for which the action and status codes may appear contradictory: If an MTA or mail gateway cannot deliver a message because doing so would entail conversions resulting in an unacceptable loss of information, it would issue a DSN with the 'action' field of "failure" and a status code of 'XXX'. If the message had instead been relayed, but with some loss of information, it might generate a DSN with the same XXX status-code, but with an action field of "relayed".

別の例は、そのためのアクションとステータスコードが矛盾して表示されることがあります。そうすることが、情報の容認できない損失をもたらす変換を伴うだろうので、MTAやメールゲートウェイがメッセージを配信できない場合、それは "の「アクション」フィールドでDSNを発行します失敗」や 『XXX』のステータスコード。メッセージが代わりに中継されますが、情報のいくつかの損失とされていた場合、それは同じXXXのステータス・コードを持つDSNを生成しますが、「中継」のアクションフィールドを持つかもしれません。

2.3.4 Status field
2.3.4 Statusフィールド

The per-recipient Status field contains a transport-independent status code that indicates the delivery status of the message to that recipient. This field MUST be present for each delivery attempt which is described by a DSN.


The syntax of the status field is:


status-field = "Status" ":" status-code


status-code = DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT

ステータスコード= DIGIT「」 1 * 3DIGIT "" 1 * 3DIGIT

; White-space characters and comments are NOT allowed within ; a status-code, though a comment enclosed in parentheses ; MAY follow the last numeric sub-field of the status-code. ; Each numeric sub-field within the status-code MUST be ; expressed without leading zero digits.

;ホワイトスペース文字とコメントは内で許可されていません。ステータスコード、括弧で囲まれたコメントけれども。ステータスコードの最後の数字のサブフィールドに従うことができます。 ;ステータス・コード内の各数値のサブフィールドでなければなりません。ゼロディジットを招くことなく表現。

Status codes thus consist of three numerical fields separated by ".". The first sub-field indicates whether the delivery attempt was successful (2= success, 4 = persistent temporary failure, 5 = permanent failure). The second sub-field indicates the probable source of any delivery anomalies, and the third sub-field denotes a precise error condition, if known.

ステータスコードは、このようにすることによって分離された3つの数値フィールドで構成します「」。最初のサブフィールドは、配達の試みが成功したかどうかを示す(2 =成功、4 =永続的な一時的な障害、5 =永久的な失敗)。第2のサブフィールドは、任意の送達異常の可能性ソースを示し、そして既知の場合に第3のサブフィールドは、正確なエラー状態を示しています。

The initial set of status-codes is defined in [STATUS].


2.3.5 Remote-MTA field

The value associated with the Remote-MTA DSN field is a printable ASCII representation of the name of the "remote" MTA that reported delivery status to the "reporting" MTA.

リモートMTA DSNフィールドに関連付けられている値は、「レポート作成」MTAへの配信状況を報告し、「リモート」MTAの名前の印字可能なASCII表現です。

remote-mta-field = "Remote-MTA" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name

リモートMTAフィールド=「リモートMTA」「:」MTA名型「;」 MTA名

NOTE: The Remote-MTA field preserves the "while talking to" information that was provided in some pre-existing nondelivery reports.


This field is optional. It MUST NOT be included if no remote MTA was involved in the attempted delivery of the message to that recipient.


2.3.6 Diagnostic-Code field

For a "failed" or "delayed" recipient, the Diagnostic-Code DSN field contains the actual diagnostic code issued by the mail transport. Since such codes vary from one mail transport to another, the diagnostic-type sub-field is needed to specify which type of diagnostic code is represented.


diagnostic-code-field = "Diagnostic-Code" ":" diagnostic-type ";" *text

診断コードフィールド=「診断・コード」「:」診断型「;」 *テキスト

NOTE: The information in the Diagnostic-Code field may be somewhat redundant with that from the Status field. The Status field is needed so that any DSN, regardless of origin, may be understood by any user agent or gateway that parses DSNs. Since the Status code will sometimes be less precise than the actual transport diagnostic code, the Diagnostic-Code field is provided to retain the latter information. Such information may be useful in a trouble ticket sent to the administrator of the Reporting MTA, or when tunneling foreign non-delivery reports through DSNs.


If the Diagnostic Code was obtained from a Remote MTA during an attempt to relay the message to that MTA, the Remote-MTA field should be present. When interpreting a DSN, the presence of a Remote-MTA field indicates that the Diagnostic Code was issued by the Remote MTA. The absence of a Remote-MTA indicates that the Diagnostic Code was issued by the Reporting MTA.

診断コードは、そのMTAにメッセージを中継しようとする時にリモートMTAから入手した場合は、リモートMTAフィールドが存在しなければなりません。 DSNを解釈すると、リモートMTAフィールドの存在は、診断コードがリモートMTAによって発行されたことを示しています。リモートMTAの不在は、診断コードが報告MTAによって発行されたことを示しています。

In addition to the Diagnostic-Code itself, additional textual description of the diagnostic, MAY appear in a comment enclosed in parentheses.


This field is optional, because some mail systems supply no additional information beyond that which is returned in the 'action' and 'status' fields. However, this field SHOULD be included if transport-specific diagnostic information is available.


2.3.7 Last-Attempt-Date field

The Last-Attempt-Date field gives the date and time of the last attempt to relay, gateway, or deliver the message (whether successful or unsuccessful) by the Reporting MTA. This is not necessarily the same as the value of the Date field from the header of the message used to transmit this delivery status notification: In cases where the DSN was generated by a gateway, the Date field in the message header contains the time the DSN was sent by the gateway and the DSN Last-Attempt-Date field contains the time the last delivery attempt occurred.


last-attempt-date-field = "Last-Attempt-Date" ":" date-time

最後の試み - 日付フィールド=「最終試行 - 日」「:」日時

This field is optional. It MUST NOT be included if the actual date and time of the last delivery attempt are not available (which might be the case if the DSN were being issued by a gateway).


The date and time are expressed in RFC 822 'date-time' format, as modified by [HOSTREQ]. Numeric timezones ([+/-]HHMM format) MUST be used.

【HOSTREQ]によって修正された日付と時刻は、RFC 822「日時」の形式で表現されます。数値タイムゾーン([+/-] HHMM形式)を使用しなければなりません。

2.3.8 final-log-id field

The "final-log-id" field gives the final-log-id of the message that was used by the final-mta. This can be useful as an index to the final-mta's log entry for that delivery attempt.


final-log-id-field = "Final-Log-ID" ":" *text

最終ログインID・フィールド= "ファイナル-LOG-ID" ":" *テキスト

This field is optional.


2.3.9 Will-Retry-Until field

For DSNs of type "delayed", the Will-Retry-Until field gives the date after which the Reporting MTA expects to abandon all attempts to deliver the message to that recipient. The Will-Retry-Until field is optional for "delay" DSNs, and MUST NOT appear in other DSNs.


will-retry-until-field = "Will-Retry-Until" ":" date-time

- 再試行されます-までフィールド=「ウィル・リトライまで」「:」日時

The date and time are expressed in RFC 822 'date-time' format, as modified by [HOSTREQ]. Numeric timezones ([+/-]HHMM format) MUST be used.

【HOSTREQ]によって修正された日付と時刻は、RFC 822「日時」の形式で表現されます。数値タイムゾーン([+/-] HHMM形式)を使用しなければなりません。

2.4 Extension fields

Additional per-message or per-recipient DSN fields may be defined in the future by later revisions or extensions to this specification. Extension-field names beginning with "X-" will never be defined as standard fields; such names are reserved for experimental use. DSN field names NOT beginning with "X-" MUST be registered with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and published in an RFC.

追加のメッセージごとまたは受信者ごとのDSNフィールドは、この仕様書に後で改訂または拡張によって将来定義することができます。 「X-」で始まる内線フィールド名は、標準のフィールドとして定義されることはありません。そのような名前は、実験的な使用のために予約されています。 「X-」で始まらないDSNフィールド名は、Internet Assigned Numbers Authority(IANA)に登録され、RFCで公開する必要があります。

Extension DSN fields may be defined for the following reasons:


(a) To allow additional information from foreign delivery status reports to be tunneled through Internet DSNs. The names of such DSN fields should begin with an indication of the foreign environment name (e.g., X400-Physical-Forwarding-Address).


(b) To allow the transmission of diagnostic information which is specific to a particular mail transport protocol. The names of such DSN fields should begin with an indication of the mail transport being used (e.g., SMTP-Remote-Recipient-Address). Such fields should be used for diagnostic purposes only and not by user agents or mail gateways.


(c) To allow transmission of diagnostic information which is specific to a particular message transfer agent (MTA). The names of such DSN fields should begin with an indication of the MTA implementation that produced the DSN. (e.g., Foomail-Queue-ID).

(C)特定のメッセージ転送エージェント(MTA)に特異的である診断情報の送信を可能にします。そのようなDSNフィールドの名前は、DSNを生成MTA実装の指示で開始すべきです。 (例えば、Foomail-キュー-ID)。

MTA implementers are encouraged to provide adequate information, via extension fields if necessary, to allow an MTA maintainer to understand the nature of correctable delivery failures and how to fix them. For example, if message delivery attempts are logged, the DSN might include information that allows the MTA maintainer to easily find the log entry for a failed delivery attempt.


If an MTA developer does not wish to register the meanings of such extension fields, "X-" fields may be used for this purpose. To avoid name collisions, the name of the MTA implementation should follow the "X-", (e.g., "X-Foomail-Log-ID").


3. Conformance and Usage Requirements

An MTA or gateway conforms to this specification if it generates DSNs according to the protocol defined in this memo. For MTAs and gateways that do not support requests for positive delivery notification (such as in [DRPT]), it is sufficient that delivery failure reports use this protocol.

それはこのメモで定義されたプロトコルに従ってDSNを生成した場合、MTA又はゲートウェイは、この仕様に準拠します。 (例えば[DRPT]のように)正の送達通知の要求をサポートしないのMTAおよびゲートウェイのためには、配信失敗レポートは、このプロトコルを使用することで十分です。

A minimal implementation of this specification need generate only the Reporting-MTA per-message field, and the Final-Recipient, Action, and Status fields for each attempt to deliver a message to a recipient described by the DSN. Generation of the other fields, when appropriate, is strongly recommended.


MTAs and gateways MUST NOT generate the Original-Recipient field of a DSN unless the mail transfer protocol provides the address originally specified by the sender at the time of submission. (Ordinary SMTP does not make that guarantee, but the SMTP extension defined in [DRPT] permits such information to be carried in the envelope if it is available.)

メール転送プロトコルは、もともと提出時に送信者によって指定されたアドレスを提供しない限りのMTAとゲートウェイは、DSNのオリジナル・受信者フィールドを生成してはなりません。 (通常のSMTPはその保証を行いませんが、許可証などの情報[DRPT]で定義されたSMTP拡張は、それが利用可能な場合封筒で運ばれます。)

Each sender-specified recipient address SHOULD result in at most one "delivered" or "failed" DSN for that recipient. If a positive DSN is requested (e.g., one using NOTIFY=SUCCESS in SMTP) for a recipient that is forwarded to multiple recipients of an "alias" (as defined in [DRPT], section 7.2.7), the forwarding MTA SHOULD normally issue a "expanded" DSN for the originally-specified recipient and not propagate the request for a DSN to the forwarding addresses. Alternatively, the forwarding MTA MAY relay the request for a DSN to exactly one of the forwarding addresses and not propagate the request to the others.

各送信者が指定した受信者のアドレスは、その受信者のために最大1つの「配信」または「失敗」DSNを生じるはずです。正のDSNが要求された場合(例えば、NOTIFY = SMTP成功用いたもの)、「エイリアス」の複数の受信者に転送される受信者([DRPT]で定義されるように、セクション7.2.7)は、転送MTAは通常SHOULDもともとは、指定された受信者のための「拡大」DSNを発行し、転送先アドレスにDSNの要求を伝播しません。また、転送MTAは、転送アドレスの正確に一つにDSNの要求を中継し、他の人に要求を伝播しないことがあります。

By contrast, successful submission of a message to a mailing list exploder is considered final delivery of the message. Upon delivery of a message to a recipient address corresponding to a mailing list exploder, the Reporting MTA SHOULD issue an appropriate DSN exactly as if the recipient address were that of an ordinary mailbox.


       NOTE: This is actually intended to make DSNs usable by mailing
       lists themselves.  Any message sent to a mailing list subscriber
       should have its envelope return address pointing to the list
       maintainer [see RFC 1123, section 5.3.7(E)].  Since DSNs are sent
       to the envelope return address, all DSNs resulting from delivery
       to the recipients of a mailing list will be sent to the list
       maintainer.  The list maintainer may elect to mechanically
       process DSNs upon receipt, and thus automatically delete invalid
       addresses from the list. (See section 7 of this memo.)

This specification places no restrictions on the processing of DSNs received by user agents or distribution lists.


4. Security Considerations

The following security considerations apply when using DSNs:


4.1 Forgery

DSNs may be forged as easily as ordinary Internet electronic mail. User agents and automatic mail handling facilities (such as mail distribution list exploders) that wish to make automatic use of DSNs should take appropriate precautions to minimize the potential damage from denial-of-service attacks.


Security threats related to forged DSNs include the sending of:


(a) A falsified delivery notification when the message is not delivered to the indicated recipient,


(b) A falsified non-delivery notification when the message was in fact delivered to the indicated recipient,


(c) A falsified Final-Recipient address,


(d) A falsified Remote-MTA identification,


(e) A falsified relay notification when the message is "dead ended".


(f) Unsolicited DSNs


4.2 Confidentiality

Another dimension of security is confidentiality. There may be cases in which a message recipient is autoforwarding messages but does not wish to divulge the address to which the messages are autoforwarded. The desire for such confidentiality will probably be heightened as "wireless mailboxes", such as pagers, become more widely used as autoforward addresses.


MTA authors are encouraged to provide a mechanism which enables the end user to preserve the confidentiality of a forwarding address. Depending on the degree of confidentiality required, and the nature of the environment to which a message were being forwarded, this might be accomplished by one or more of: (a) issuing a "relayed" DSN (if a positive DSN was requested) when a message is forwarded to a confidential forwarding address, and disabling requests for positive DSNs for the forwarded message,


(b) declaring the message to be delivered, issuing a "delivered" DSN, re-sending the message to the confidential forwarding address, and arranging for no DSNs to be issued for the re-sent message,


(c) omitting "Remote-*" or extension fields of a DSN whenever they would otherwise contain confidential information (such as a confidential forwarding address),

(C)は、そうでない場合(例えば、機密転送アドレスのような)機密情報を含むであろうたびDSNの「リモート - *」又は拡張フィールドを省略し、

(d) for messages forwarded to a confidential address, setting the envelope return address (e.g., SMTP MAIL FROM address) to the NULL reverse-path ("<>") (so that no DSNs would be sent from a downstream MTA to the original sender),


(e) for messages forwarded to a confidential address, disabling delivery notifications for the forwarded message (e.g., if the "next-hop" MTA uses ESMTP and supports the DSN extension, by using the NOTIFY=NEVER parameter to the RCPT command), or

機密アドレスに転送メッセージ、転送されたメッセージの配信通知を無効にする(例えば、「次のホップ」は、MTAは= RCPTコマンドにパラメータ決してNOTIFY使用することによって、ESMTPを使用し、DSN拡張をサポートしている場合)のための(e)に、または

(f) when forwarding mail to a confidential address, having the forwarding MTA rewrite the envelope return address for the forwarded message and attempt delivery of that message as if the forwarding MTA were the originator. On its receipt of final delivery status, the forwarding MTA would issue a DSN to the original sender.


In general, any optional DSN field may be omitted if the Reporting MTA site determines that inclusion of the field would impose too great a compromise of site confidentiality. The need for such confidentiality must be balanced against the utility of the omitted information in trouble reports and DSNs gatewayed to foreign environments.


Implementers are cautioned that many existing MTAs will send non-delivery notifications to a return address in the message header (rather than to the one in the envelope), in violation of SMTP and other protocols. If a message is forwarded through such an MTA, no reasonable action on the part of the forwarding MTA will prevent the downstream MTA from compromising the forwarding address. Likewise, if the recipient's MTA automatically responds to messages based on a request in the message header (such as the nonstandard, but widely used, Return-Receipt-To extension header), it will also compromise the forwarding address.


4.3 Non-Repudiation

Within the framework of today's internet mail, the DSNs defined in this memo provide valuable information to the mail user; however, even a "failed" DSN can not be relied upon as a guarantee that a message was not received by the recipient. Even if DSNs are not actively forged, conditions exist under which a message can be delivered despite the fact that a failure DSN was issued.

今日のインターネットメールの枠組みの中で、このメモで定義されたDSNは、メールユーザーに有益な情報を提供します。しかし、「失敗した」DSNは、メッセージが受信者によって受信されなかった保証として当てにすることはできません。 DSNには積極的に偽造されていない場合でも、条件はメッセージが障害DSNが発行されたという事実にもかかわらず配信することができ、その下に存在します。

For example, a race condition in the SMTP protocol allows for the duplication of messages if the connection is dropped following a completed DATA command, but before a response is seen by the SMTP client.


This will cause the SMTP client to retransmit the message, even though the SMTP server has already accepted it [SMTPDUP]. If one of those delivery attempts succeeds and the other one fails, a "failed" DSN could be issued even though the message actually reached the recipient.


5. Normative References

[DRPT] Moore, K., "SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3461, January 2003.

[DRPT]ムーア、K.、 "配送状態通知のためのSMTPサービス拡張"、RFC 3461、2003年1月。

[DSN] Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 1894, January 1996.

[DSN]ムーア、K.とG.ボードルイ、 "配送状態通知のための広げることができるメッセージフォーマット"、RFC 1894、1996年1月。

[HOSTREQ] Braden, R. (ed.), "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.

[HOSTREQ]ブレーデン、R.(編)、 "インターネットホストのための要件 - 、アプリケーションとサポート"、STD 3、RFC 1123、1989年10月。

[MIME1] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.

[MIME1]解放され、N.とN. Borenstein、 "マルチパーパスインターネットメールエクステンション(MIME)第一部:インターネットメッセージ本体のフォーマット"、RFC 2045、1996年11月。

[MIME3] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047, November 1996.

[MIME3]ムーア、K.、 "MIME(多目的インターネットメール拡張)パート3:非ASCIIテキストのためのメッセージヘッダの拡張"、RFC 2047、1996年11月。

[REPORT] Vaudreuil, G., "The Multipart/Report Content Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages", RFC 3462, January 2003.

[REPORT]ヴォードルイユ、G.、「メールシステム管理メッセージの報告のための複合/レポートのコンテンツタイプ」、RFC 3462、2003年1月。

[RFC822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.

[RFC822]クロッカー、D.、 "ARPAインターネットテキストメッセージの形式の規格"、STD 11、RFC 822、1982年8月。

[SMTP] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821, August 1982.

[SMTP]ポステル、J.、 "簡易メール転送プロトコル"、STD 10、RFC 821、1982年8月。

[SMTPDUP] Partridge, C., "Duplicate Messages and SMTP", RFC 1047, February 1988.

[SMTPDUP]ウズラ、C.、 "重複メッセージとSMTP"、RFC 1047、1988年2月。

[STATUS] Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", RFC 3463, January 2003.

[STATUS]ヴォードルイユ、G.、 "強化されたメールシステムステータスコード"、RFC 3463、2003年1月。

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC2119]ブラドナーの、S.、 "要件レベルを示すためにRFCsにおける使用のためのキーワード"、BCP 14、RFC 2119、1997年3月。

6. Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the following people for their reviews of early drafts of RFC 1894, of which this document is a revision, and their suggestions for improvement: Eric Allman, Harald Alvestrand, Allan Cargille, Jim Conklin, Peter Cowen, Dave Crocker, Roger Fajman, Ned Freed, Marko Kaittola, Steve Kille, John Klensin, John Gardiner Myers, Mark Nahabedian, Julian Onions, Jacob Palme, Jean Charles Roy, and Gregory Sheehan.

著者は、この文書が改訂され、改善のための彼らの提案そのうち、RFC 1894の初期の草稿の彼らのレビューのために、以下の人々に感謝したい:エリック・オールマン、ハラルドAlvestrand、アラン・カーギル、ジム・コンクリン、ピーター・コーウェン、デイブ・クロッカー、ロジャーFajman、ネッドフリード、マルコKaittola、スティーブKille、ジョン・クレンシン、ジョン・ガーディナーマイヤーズ、マーク・Nahabedian、ジュリアン玉ねぎ、ヤコブパルメ、ジャン・シャルル・ロイ、およびグレゴリーシーハン。

Appendix A - collected grammar

付録A - 収集文法

NOTE: The following lexical tokens are defined in RFC 822: atom, CHAR, comment, CR, CRLF, DIGIT, LF, linear-white-space, SPACE, text. The date-time lexical token is defined in [HOSTREQ].

注:原子、CHAR、コメント、CR、CRLF、DIGIT、LF、リニアホワイトスペース、SPACE、テキスト:以下の字句は、RFC 822で定義されています。日時字句トークンは[HOSTREQ]で定義されています。

action-field = "Action" ":" action-value


action-value = "failed" / "delayed" / "delivered" / "relayed" / "expanded"


address-type = atom


arrival-date-field = "Arrival-Date" ":" date-time


delivery-status-content = per-message-fields 1*( CRLF per-recipient-fields )

配送状況内容=メッセージごとのフィールド1 *(CRLFごとの受信者フィールド)

diagnostic-code-field = "Diagnostic-Code" ":" diagnostic-type ";" *text

診断コードフィールド=「診断・コード」「:」診断型「;」 *テキスト

diagnostic-type = atom


dsn-gateway-field = "DSN-Gateway" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name

DSN-ゲートウェイフィールド= "DSNゲートウェイ" ":" MTA名型 ";" MTA名

envelope-id = *text

封筒-ID = *テキスト

extension-field = extension-field-name ":" *text


extension-field-name = atom


final-recipient-field = "Final-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-address


final-log-id-field = "Final-Log-ID" ":" *text

最終ログインID・フィールド= "ファイナル-LOG-ID" ":" *テキスト

generic-address = *text

一般的なアドレス= *テキスト

last-attempt-date-field = "Last-Attempt-Date" ":" date-time

最後の試み - 日付フィールド=「最終試行 - 日」「:」日時

mta-name = *text

MTA名= *テキスト

mta-name-type = atom


original-envelope-id-field = "Original-Envelope-Id" ":" envelope-id

オリジナルのエンベロープ-IDフィールド= "オリジナル・封筒-ID" ":" エンベロープ-ID

original-recipient-field = "Original-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-address


per-message-fields = [ original-envelope-id-field CRLF ] reporting-mta-field CRLF [ dsn-gateway-field CRLF ] [ received-from-mta-field CRLF ] [ arrival-date-field CRLF ] *( extension-field CRLF )

メッセージごとのフィールド= [元のエンベロープ-IDフィールドCRLF]報告-MTA-フィールドCRLF [DSN-ゲートウェイフィールドCRLF] [受信から-MTA-フィールドCRLF] [到着日付フィールドCRLF](*拡張フィールドCRLF)

per-recipient-fields = [ original-recipient-field CRLF ] final-recipient-field CRLF action-field CRLF status-field CRLF [ remote-mta-field CRLF ] [ diagnostic-code-field CRLF ] [ last-attempt-date-field CRLF ] [ final-log-id-field CRLF ] [ will-retry-until-field CRLF ] *( extension-field CRLF )

受信者ごとのフィールド= [元の受信者フィールドCRLF]最終受信者フィールドCRLFアクションフィールドCRLFステータスフィールドCRLF [リモートMTAフィールドCRLF] [診断コードフィールドCRLF] [最後の試み日付-field CRLF] [最終ログIDフィールドCRLF] [意志-リトライまでフィールドCRLF] *(拡張フィールドCRLF)

received-from-mta-field = "Received-From-MTA" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name

受信-から-MTA-フィールド= "受信-から-MTA" ":" MTA名型 ";" MTA名

remote-mta-field = "Remote-MTA" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name

リモートMTAフィールド=「リモートMTA」「:」MTA名型「;」 MTA名

reporting-mta-field = "Reporting-MTA" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name

報告-MTA-フィールド= " "-MTAの報告":" MTA名型 ";" MTA名

status-code = DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT

ステータスコード= DIGIT「」 1 * 3DIGIT "" 1 * 3DIGIT

; White-space characters and comments are NOT allowed within a ; a status-code, though a comment enclosed in parentheses ; MAY follow the last numeric sub-field of the status-code. ; Each numeric sub-field within the status-code MUST be ; expressed without leading zero digits.

;ホワイトスペース文字とコメントは内で許可されていません。ステータスコード、括弧で囲まれたコメントけれども。ステータスコードの最後の数字のサブフィールドに従うことができます。 ;ステータス・コード内の各数値のサブフィールドでなければなりません。ゼロディジットを招くことなく表現。

status-field = "Status" ":" status-code


will-retry-until-field = "Will-Retry-Until" ":" date-time

- 再試行されます-までフィールド=「ウィル・リトライまで」「:」日時

Appendix B - Guidelines for gatewaying DSNs

付録B - DSNをゲートウェイ処理するためのガイドライン

NOTE: This section provides non-binding recommendations for the construction of mail gateways that wish to provide semi-transparent delivery reports between the Internet and another electronic mail system. Specific DSN gateway requirements for a particular pair of mail systems may be defined by other documents.


Gatewaying from other mail systems to DSNs


A mail gateway may issue a DSN to convey the contents of a "foreign" delivery or non-delivery notification over Internet mail. When there are appropriate mappings from the foreign notification elements to DSN fields, the information may be transmitted in those DSN fields. Additional information (such as might be useful in a trouble ticket or needed to tunnel the foreign notification through the Internet) may be defined in extension DSN fields. (Such fields should be given names that identify the foreign mail protocol, e.g., X400-* for X.400 NDN or DN protocol elements)

メールゲートウェイは、インターネットメール経由「外国」の配信や配信不能通知の内容を伝えるためにDSNを発行することができます。 DSNフィールドへの外部通知素子から適切なマッピングが存在する場合、情報は、それらのDSNフィールドで送信されても​​よいです。追加情報拡張DSNフィールドに定義することができ(などは、トラブルチケットに有用またはトンネルにインターネットを通じて外国通知が必要になる場合があります)。 (このようなフィールドが外部メールプロトコルを識別する名前を与えられるべきである、例えば、X.400 NDNまたはDNプロトコル要素のX400- *)

The gateway must attempt to supply reasonable values for the Reporting-MTA, Final-Recipient, Action, and Status fields. These will normally be obtained by translating the values from the remote delivery or non-delivery notification into their Internet-style equivalents. However, some loss of information is to be expected. For example, the set of status-codes defined for DSNs may not be adequate to fully convey the delivery diagnostic code from the foreign system. The gateway should assign the most precise code which describes the failure condition, falling back on "generic" codes such as 2.0.0 (success), 4.0.0 (temporary failure), and 5.0.0 (permanent failure) when necessary. The actual foreign diagnostic code should be retained in the Diagnostic-Code field (with an appropriate diagnostic-type value) for use in trouble tickets or tunneling.


The sender-specified recipient address, and the original envelope-id, if present in the foreign transport envelope, should be preserved in the Original-Recipient and Original-Envelope-ID fields.


The gateway should also attempt to preserve the "final" recipient addresses and MTA names from the foreign system. Whenever possible, foreign protocol elements should be encoded as meaningful printable ASCII strings.


For DSNs produced from foreign delivery or nondelivery notifications, the name of the gateway MUST appear in the DSN-Gateway field of the DSN.


Gatewaying from DSNs to other mail systems


It may be possible to gateway DSNs from the Internet into a foreign mail system. The primary purpose of such gatewaying is to convey delivery status information in a form that is usable by the destination system. A secondary purpose is to allow "tunneling" of DSNs through foreign mail systems, in case the DSN may be gatewayed back into the Internet.


In general, the recipient of the DSN (i.e., the sender of the original message) will want to know, for each recipient: the closest available approximation to the original recipient address, the delivery status (success, failure, or temporary failure), and for failed deliveries, a diagnostic code that describes the reason for the failure.


If possible, the gateway should attempt to preserve the Original-Recipient address and Original-Envelope-ID (if present), in the resulting foreign delivery status report.


When reporting delivery failures, if the diagnostic-type sub-field of the Diagnostic-Code field indicates that the original diagnostic code is understood by the destination environment, the information from the Diagnostic-Code field should be used. Failing that, the information in the Status field should be mapped into the closest available diagnostic code used in the destination environment.


If it is possible to tunnel a DSN through the destination environment, the gateway specification may define a means of preserving the DSN information in the delivery status reports used by that environment.


Appendix C - Guidelines for use of DSNs by mailing list exploders

付録C - リスト発破を郵送のDSNの使用のためのガイドライン

This section pertains only to the use of DSNs by "mailing lists" as defined in [4], section 7.2.7.


DSNs are designed to be used by mailing list exploders to allow them to detect and automatically delete recipients for whom mail delivery fails repeatedly.


When forwarding a message to list subscribers, the mailing list exploder should always set the envelope return address (e.g., SMTP MAIL FROM address) to point to a special address which is set up to receive non-delivery reports. A "smart" mailing list exploder can therefore intercept such non-delivery reports, and if they are in the DSN format, automatically examine them to determine for which recipients a message delivery failed or was delayed.


The Original-Recipient field should be used if available, since it should exactly match the subscriber address known to the list. If the Original-Recipient field is not available, the recipient field may resemble the list subscriber address. Often, however, the list subscriber will have forwarded his mail to a different address, or the address may be subject to some re-writing, so heuristics may be required to successfully match an address from the recipient field. Care is needed in this case to minimize the possibility of false matches.


The reason for delivery failure can be obtained from the Status and Action fields, and from the Diagnostic-Code field (if the status-type is recognized). Reports for recipients with action values other than "failed" can generally be ignored; in particular, subscribers should not be removed from a list due to "delayed" reports.

(ステータスタイプが認識された場合)配信失敗の理由は、ステータスとアクションフィールドから、および診断-Codeフィールドから取得することができます。 「失敗した」以外のアクション値を持つ受信者のためのレポートは、一般的に無視することができます。具体的には、加入者による「遅延」レポートにリストから削除すべきではありません。

In general, almost any failure status code (even a "permanent" one) can result from a temporary condition. It is therefore recommended that a list exploder not delete a subscriber based on any single failure DSN (regardless of the status code), but only on the persistence of delivery failure over a period of time.


However, some kinds of failures are less likely than others to have been caused by temporary conditions, and some kinds of failures are more likely to be noticed and corrected quickly than others. Once more precise status codes are defined, it may be useful to differentiate between the status codes when deciding whether to delete a subscriber. For example, on a list with a high message volume, it might be desirable to temporarily suspend delivery to a recipient address which causes repeated "temporary" failures, rather than simply deleting the recipient. The duration of the suspension might depend on the type of error. On the other hand, a "user unknown" error that persisted for several days could be considered a reliable indication that address were no longer valid.


Appendix D - IANA registration forms for DSN types

付録D - DSNタイプのIANA登録フォーム

The forms below are for use when registering a new address-type, diagnostic-type, or MTA-name-type with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Each piece of information requested by a registration form may be satisfied either by providing the information on the form itself, or by including a reference to a published, publicly available specification which includes the necessary information. IANA MAY reject DSN type registrations because of incomplete registration forms, imprecise specifications, or inappropriate type names.

IANA(Internet Assigned Numbers Authority)によって新しいアドレスタイプ、診断タイプ、またはMTA名型を登録する場合は、以下のフォームを使用するためのものです。登録フォームによって要求された各情報は、フォーム自体に情報を提供することにより、または必要な情報を含む公開され、公的に利用可能な仕様への参照を含むいずれかによって満たされてもよいです。 IANAは、不完全な登録フォーム、不正確な仕様、または不適切なタイプ名のDSNタイプの登録を拒否することがあります。

To register a DSN type, complete the applicable form below and send it via Internet electronic mail to <IANA@IANA.ORG>.


IANA registration form for address-type


A registration for a DSN address-type MUST include the following information:


(a) The proposed address-type name.


(b) The syntax for mailbox addresses of this type, specified using BNF, regular expressions, ASN.1, or other non-ambiguous language.


(c) If addresses of this type are not composed entirely of graphic characters from the US-ASCII repertoire, a specification for how they are to be encoded as graphic US-ASCII characters in a DSN Original-Recipient or Final-Recipient DSN field.


(d) [optional] A specification for how addresses of this type are to be translated to and from Internet electronic mail addresses.


IANA registration form for diagnostic-type


A registration for a DSN address-type MUST include the following information:


(a) The proposed diagnostic-type name.


(b) A description of the syntax to be used for expressing diagnostic codes of this type as graphic characters from the US-ASCII repertoire.


(c) A list of valid diagnostic codes of this type and the meaning of each code.


(d) [optional] A specification for mapping from diagnostic codes of this type to DSN status codes (as defined in [5]).

(D)[オプション] DSNステータスコードに、このタイプの診断コードからマッピングするための仕様([5]で定義されるように)。

IANA registration form for MTA-name-type


A registration for a DSN MTA-name-type must include the following information:

DSN MTA名型の登録は、以下の情報を含める必要があります。

(a) The proposed MTA-name-type name.


(b) A description of the syntax of MTA names of this type, using BNF, regular expressions, ASN.1, or other non-ambiguous language.


(c) If MTA names of this type do not consist entirely of graphic characters from the US-ASCII repertoire, a specification for how an MTA name of this type should be expressed as a sequence of graphic US-ASCII characters.


Appendix E - Examples

付録E - 例

These examples are provided as illustration only, and are not considered part of the DSN protocol specification. If an example conflicts with the protocol definition above, the example is wrong.


Likewise, the use of *-type sub-field names or extension fields in these examples is not to be construed as a definition for those type names or extension fields.


These examples were manually translated from bounced messages using whatever information was available.


Simple DSN


This is a simple DSN issued after repeated attempts to deliver a message failed. In this case, the DSN is issued by the same MTA from which the message was originated.


Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 17:16:05 -0400 From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@CS.UTK.EDU> Message-Id: <199407072116.RAA14128@CS.UTK.EDU> Subject: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 5 days To: <> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="RAA14128.773615765/CS.UTK.EDU"

日付:木、1994年7月7日から夜05時16分05秒-0400:メール配信サブシステム<MAILER-DAEMON@CS.UTK.EDU>メッセージ-ID:<199407072116.RAA14128@CS.UTK.EDU>件名:返されたメール: <> MIME-バージョン:5日間のメッセージを送信できません1.0のContent-Type:マルチパート/レポートを。レポートタイプ=配送状況。境界= "RAA14128.773615765 / CS.UTK.EDU"


--RAA14128.773615765 / CS.UTK.EDU

The original message was received at Sat, 2 Jul 1994 17:10:28 -0400 from root@localhost

元のメッセージは、ルート@ localhostのから土、1994年7月2日17時10分28秒-0400で受信されました

       ----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
   <>  (unrecoverable error)
   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
   <>... Deferred: Connection timed out
   Message could not be delivered for 5 days
   Message will be deleted from queue

--RAA14128.773615765/CS.UTK.EDU content-type: message/delivery-status

--RAA14128.773615765 / CS.UTK.EDUコンテンツタイプ:メッセージ/配送状況

Reporting-MTA: dns;


Original-Recipient: rfc822; Final-Recipient: rfc822; Action: failed Status: 4.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 426 connection timed out Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 17:15:49 -0400

オリジナル・受信者:RFC822; louisl@larry.slip.umd.edu最終受信者:RFC822; louisl@larry.slip.umd.eduの処置:4.0.0診断-コード:ステータス失敗したSMTPを。 -0400 1994年7月17時15分49秒木、7:426接続が最終試行-日をタイムアウトになりました

--RAA14128.773615765/CS.UTK.EDU content-type: message/rfc822

--RAA14128.773615765 / CS.UTK.EDUコンテンツタイプ:メッセージ/ RFC822

[original message goes here]



--RAA14128.773615765 / CS.UTK.EDU--

Multi-Recipient DSN


This is another DSN issued by the sender's MTA, which contains details of multiple delivery attempts. Some of these were detected locally, and others by a remote MTA.


Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 09:21:47 -0400 From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@CS.UTK.EDU> Subject: Returned mail: User unknown To: <owner-ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="JAA13167.773673707/CS.UTK.EDU"

日付:金、1994年7月8日9時21分47秒-0400から:メール配信サブシステム<MAILER-DAEMON@CS.UTK.EDU>件名:返されたメール:にとって未知のユーザー:<owner-ups-mib@CS.UTK。 EDU> MIME-バージョン:1.0のContent-Type:マルチパート/レポート。レポートタイプ=配送状況。境界= "JAA13167.773673707 / CS.UTK.EDU"

--JAA13167.773673707/CS.UTK.EDU content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

--JAA13167.773673707 / CS.UTK.EDUコンテンツタイプ:テキスト/平野。文字セット= US-ASCII

          ----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
   <> (unrecoverable error)
   <> (unrecoverable error)

--JAA13167.773673707/CS.UTK.EDU content-type: message/delivery-status

--JAA13167.773673707 / CS.UTK.EDUコンテンツタイプ:メッセージ/配送状況

Reporting-MTA: dns;


Original-Recipient: rfc822; Final-Recipient: rfc822; Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure) Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 'arathib@vnet.IBM.COM' is not a registered gateway user Remote-MTA: dns;

オリジナル・受信者:RFC822;最終受信者:RFC822;の処置:5.0.0(永久故障)診断-コード:ステータス失敗したSMTPを。 550「arathib@vnet.IBM.COM」でない登録ゲートウェイユーザーリモートMTA:DNS。

Original-Recipient: rfc822; Final-Recipient: rfc822; Action: delayed Status: 4.0.0 ( host name lookup failure)

オリジナル・受信者:RFC822; johnh@hpnjld.njd.hp.com最終受信者:RFC822; johnh@hpnjld.njd.hp.comアクション:遅れステータス:4.0.0(ホスト名の検索失敗)

Original-Recipient: rfc822; Final-Recipient: rfc822; Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 user unknown Remote-MTA: dns;

オリジナル・受信者:RFC822; wsnell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu最終受信者:RFC822; wsnell@sdcc13.ucsd.eduの処置:5.0.0診断-コード:ステータス失敗したSMTPを。 550ユーザー、未知のリモートMTA:DNS;

--JAA13167.773673707/CS.UTK.EDU content-type: message/rfc822

--JAA13167.773673707 / CS.UTK.EDUコンテンツタイプ:メッセージ/ RFC822

[original message goes here]



--JAA13167.773673707 / CS.UTK.EDU--

DSN from gateway to foreign system


A delivery report generated by Message Router (MAILBUS) and gatewayed by PMDF_MR to a DSN. In this case the gateway did not have sufficient information to supply an original-recipient address.


   Disclose-recipients: prohibited
   Date: Fri, 08 Jul 1994 09:21:25 -0400 (EDT)
   From: Message Router Submission Agent <>
   Subject: Status of: Re: Battery current sense
   To: owner-ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU
   Message-id: <>
   MIME-version: 1.0
   content-type: multipart/report;

--84229080704991.122306.SYS30 content-type: text/plain


Invalid address - nair_s %DIR-E-NODIRMTCH, No matching Directory Entry Entry found

無効なアドレス - nair_s%DIR-E-NODIRMTCH、一致ディレクトリエントリのエントリが見つかりました

--84229080704991.122306.SYS30 content-type: message/delivery-status


Reporting-MTA: mailbus; SYS30

報告-MTA:mailbusを。 SYS30

Final-Recipient: unknown; nair_s Status: 5.0.0 (unknown permanent failure) Action: failed

最終受信者:不明。 nair_sステータス:5.0.0(不明永久失敗)アクション:失敗しました



Delayed DSN


A delay report from a multiprotocol MTA. Note that there is no returned content, so no third body part appears in the DSN.


   MIME-Version: 1.0
   From: <>
   Message-Id: <199407092338.TAA23293@CS.UTK.EDU>
   Received: from by
           id <>;
           Sun, 10 Jul 1994 00:36:51 +0100
   Date: Sun, 10 Jul 1994 00:36:51 +0100
   Subject: WARNING: message delayed at ""
   content-type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;

--foobar content-type: text/plain


The following message:


UA-ID: Reliable PC (... Q-ID: sun2.nsf:77/msg.11820-0

UA-ID:信頼性の高いPC(... Q-ID:sun2.nsf:77 / msg.11820-0

has not been delivered to the intended recipient:



despite repeated delivery attempts over the past 24 hours.


The usual cause of this problem is that the remote system is temporarily unavailable.


Delivery will continue to be attempted up to a total elapsed time of 168 hours, i.e., 7 days.


You will be informed if delivery proves to be impossible within this time.


Please quote the Q-ID in any queries regarding this mail.


--foobar content-type: message/delivery-status


Reporting-MTA: dns;


Final-Recipient: rfc822;


Status: 4.0.0 (unknown temporary failure) Action: delayed




Appendix F - Changes from RFC 1894

付録F - RFC 1894からの変更点

Changed Authors contact information


Updated required standards boilerplate


Edited the text to make it spell-checker and grammar checker compliant


Updated references to point to later, more mature documents, changed reference enumeration scheme.


Fixed paragraph numbering on page 20


Fixed Delayed DSN example


Added Table of Contents


Moved Appendices to the end of the document


Changed the MTA-name-Type for gateways into Internet mail, the MTA-name-type from "SMTP" to "dns".


Authors' Addresses


Keith Moore University of Tennessee 1122 Volunteer Blvd, Suite 203 Knoxville TN 37996-3450 USA

テネシー1122年のキース・ムーア大学ボランティアブルバード、スイート203ノックスビルTN 37996から3450 USA

Phone: +1-865-974-3126 Fax: +1-865-974-8296 EMail:

電話:+ 1-865-974-3126ファックス:+ 1-865-974-8296 Eメール

Gregory M. Vaudreuil Lucent Technologies 7291 Williamson Rd Dallas, Tx. 75214 USA

グレゴリーM.ヴォードルイユルーセント・テクノロジーズ7291のウィリアムソンRdのダラス、テキサス州。 75214 USA

Phone: +1 214 823 9325 EMail:

電話:+1 214 823 9325 Eメール

Full Copyright Statement


Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.


This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.


The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.






Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.

RFC Editor機能のための基金は現在、インターネット協会によって提供されます。