Network Working Group John Klensin, WG Chair Internet Draft Ned Freed, Editor Marshall Rose Einar Stefferud David Crocker SMTP Service Extensions Tue Nov 24 12:30:01 1992 1. Status of this Memo This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas, and its Working Groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet Drafts. Internet Drafts are valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. (The file 1id-abstracts.txt on nic.ddn.mil describes the current status of each Internet Draft.) It is not appropriate to use Internet Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a "work in progress". 2. 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 IANA. 3. 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. Internet Draft SMTP Service Extensions Nov 1992 4. Framework for SMTP Extensions For the purpose of service extensions to the 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 RFC 822 [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 a server SMTP can inform a client SMTP 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. Expires April 21, 1993 [Page 2] Internet Draft SMTP Service Extensions Nov 1992 5. The EHLO command A client SMTP should start an SMTP session by issuing the EHLO command instead of the HELO command. 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. 5.1. 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 ) Expires April 21, 1993 [Page 3] Internet Draft SMTP Service Extensions Nov 1992 ; the usual HELO chit-chat greeting ::= 1* ehlo-line ::= ehlo-keyword *( SP ehlo-param ) ehlo-keyword ::= (ALPHA / DIGIT) *(ALPHA / DIGIT / "-") ; syntax and values depend on ehlo-keyword ehlo-param ::= 1* ALPHA ::= DIGIT ::= CR ::= LF ::= SP ::= 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 RFC 821. 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 Expires April 21, 1993 [Page 4] Internet Draft SMTP Service Extensions Nov 1992 to be, the same 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 not presented in the EHLO response that do not begin with "X" must correspond to a SMTP service extension registered with IANA. A conforming server must not offer 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. 5.2. 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. 5.3. Error responses If the server SMTP does not recognize the EHLO command, it will return code 500. 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. Expires April 21, 1993 [Page 5] Internet Draft SMTP Service Extensions Nov 1992 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. 6. 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 RFC 821 Send or Mail SOML none SOML defined in RFC 821 Send and Mail SAML none SAML defined in RFC 821 Expand EXPN none EXPN defined in RFC 821 Help HELP none HELP defined in RFC 821 Turn TURN none TURN defined in RFC 821 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.) 7. 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*") / ("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. 7.1. 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. 8. 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. Expires April 21, 1993 [Page 7] Internet Draft SMTP Service Extensions Nov 1992 9. Usage Example (1) An interaction of the form: S: C: 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: C: 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). 10. Security Considerations This RFC does not discuss security issues and is not believed to raise any security issues not 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 Expires April 21, 1993 [Page 8] Internet Draft SMTP Service Extensions Nov 1992 described in other RFCs should be dealt with in those RFCs. 11. 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. 12. References [1] J.B. Postel. Simple Mail Transfer Protocol. Request for Comments 821, (August, 1982). [2] D.H. Crocker. Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages. Request for Comments 822, (August, 1982). [3] N.S. Borenstein, N. Freed. Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions. Request for Comments 1341, (June, 1992). [4] K. Moore. Representation of Non-ASCII Text in Internet Message Headers. Request for Comments 1342, (June, 1992). [5] R.T. Braden. Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support. Request for Comments 1123, (October, 1989). Expires April 21, 1993 [Page 9] Internet Draft SMTP Service Extensions Nov 1992 13. Chair, Editor, and Author Addresses John Klensin, WG Chair United Nations University PO Box 500, Charles Street Station Boston, MA 02114-0500 tel: +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 tel: +1 909 624 7907 fax: +1 909 621 5319 email: ned@innosoft.com Marshall T. Rose Dover Beach Consulting, Inc. email: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us Einar A. Stefferud Network Management Associates, Inc. email: stef@nma.com David H. Crocker The Branch Office email: dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu Expires April 21, 1993 [Page 10]