- Home
- RFCs by Subject
- messaging
- message format
message format
Internet message format: headers, addressing, disposition
Within this page
message format RFCs (43)
RFC 9477: Complaint Feedback Loop Address Header
Experimental- J. Benecke
- September 2023
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document describes a method that allows a Message Originator to specify a Complaint Feedback Loop (CFBL) address as a message header field. It also defines the rules for processing and forwarding such a complaint. The motivation for this arises out of the absence of a standardized and automated way to provide Mailbox Providers with an address for a CFBL. Currently, providing and maintaining such an address is a manual and time-consuming process for Message Originators and Mailbox Providers.
The mechanism specified in this document is being published as an experiment to gather feedback and gauge the interest of implementers and deployers. This document is produced through the Independent RFC Stream and was not subject to the IETF's approval process.
Abstract
This document describes a method that allows a Message Originator to specify a Complaint Feedback Loop (CFBL) address as a message header field. It also defines the rules for processing and forwarding such a complaint. The motivation for this arises out of the absence of a standardized and automated way to provide Mailbox Providers with an address for a CFBL. Currently, providing and maintaining such an address is a manual and time-consuming process for Message Originators and Mailbox Providers.
The mechanism specified in this document is being published as an experiment to gather feedback and gauge the interest of implementers and deployers. This document is produced through the Independent RFC Stream and was not subject to the IETF's approval process.
RFC 9228: Delivered-To Email Header Field
Experimental- D. Crocker
- April 2022
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
The address to which email is delivered might be different than any of the addresses shown in any of the content header fields that were created by the email's author. For example, the address used by the email transport service is provided separately, such as through SMTP's "RCPT TO" command, and might not match any address in the To: or cc: fields. In addition, before final delivery, handling can entail a sequence of submission/delivery events, using a sequence of different destination addresses that (eventually) lead to the recipient. As well, a receiving system's delivery process can produce local address transformations.
It can be helpful for a message to have a common way to record each delivery in such a sequence, noting each address used in the sequence to that recipient, such as for (1) analyzing the path a message has taken, (2) loop detection, or (3) formulating the author's address in a reply message. This document defines a header field for this information.
Email handling information discloses details about the email infrastructure, as well as about a particular recipient; this can raise privacy concerns.
A header field such as this is not automatically assured of widespread use. Therefore, this document is being published as an Experimental RFC, looking for constituency and for operational utility. This document was produced through the Independent Submission Stream and was not subject to the IETF's approval process.
Abstract
The address to which email is delivered might be different than any of the addresses shown in any of the content header fields that were created by the email's author. For example, the address used by the email transport service is provided separately, such as through SMTP's "RCPT TO" command, and might not match any address in the To: or cc: fields. In addition, before final delivery, handling can entail a sequence of submission/delivery events, using a sequence of different destination addresses that (eventually) lead to the recipient. As well, a receiving system's delivery process can produce local address transformations.
It can be helpful for a message to have a common way to record each delivery in such a sequence, noting each address used in the sequence to that recipient, such as for (1) analyzing the path a message has taken, (2) loop detection, or (3) formulating the author's address in a reply message. This document defines a header field for this information.
Email handling information discloses details about the email infrastructure, as well as about a particular recipient; this can raise privacy concerns.
A header field such as this is not automatically assured of widespread use. Therefore, this document is being published as an Experimental RFC, looking for constituency and for operational utility. This document was produced through the Independent Submission Stream and was not subject to the IETF's approval process.
RFC 8601: Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status
Proposed Standard- M. Kucherawy
- May 2019
- IETF publication
- Applications and Real-Time Area
Abstract
This document specifies a message header field called "Authentication-Results" for use with electronic mail messages to indicate the results of message authentication efforts. Any receiver-side software, such as mail filters or Mail User Agents (MUAs), can use this header field to relay that information in a convenient and meaningful way to users or to make sorting and filtering decisions.
This document obsoletes RFC 7601.
Abstract
This document specifies a message header field called "Authentication-Results" for use with electronic mail messages to indicate the results of message authentication efforts. Any receiver-side software, such as mail filters or Mail User Agents (MUAs), can use this header field to relay that information in a convenient and meaningful way to users or to make sorting and filtering decisions.
This document obsoletes RFC 7601.
RFC 8098: STD 85: Message Disposition Notification
Internet Standard- T. Hansen
- A. Melnikov
- February 2017
- IETF publication
- Applications and Real-Time Area
Abstract
This memo defines a MIME content type that may be used by a Mail User Agent (MUA) or electronic mail gateway to report the disposition of a message after it has been successfully delivered to a recipient. This content type is intended to be machine processable. Additional message header fields are also defined to permit Message Disposition Notifications (MDNs) to be requested by the sender of a message. The purpose is to extend Internet Mail to support functionality often found in other messaging systems, such as X.400 and the proprietary "LAN-based" systems, and are often referred to as "read receipts," "acknowledgements," or "receipt notifications." The intention is to do this while respecting privacy concerns, which have often been expressed when such functions have been discussed in the past.
Because many messages are sent between the Internet and other messaging systems (such as X.400 or the proprietary "LAN-based" systems), the MDN protocol is designed to be useful in a multiprotocol messaging environment. To this end, the protocol described in this memo provides for the carriage of "foreign" addresses, in addition to those normally used in Internet Mail. Additional attributes may also be defined to support "tunneling" of foreign notifications through Internet Mail.
This document is an Internet Standard. It obsoletes RFC 3798 and updates RFC 2046 (message/partial media type handling) and RFC 3461 (Original-Recipient header field generation requirement).
Abstract
This memo defines a MIME content type that may be used by a Mail User Agent (MUA) or electronic mail gateway to report the disposition of a message after it has been successfully delivered to a recipient. This content type is intended to be machine processable. Additional message header fields are also defined to permit Message Disposition Notifications (MDNs) to be requested by the sender of a message. The purpose is to extend Internet Mail to support functionality often found in other messaging systems, such as X.400 and the proprietary "LAN-based" systems, and are often referred to as "read receipts," "acknowledgements," or "receipt notifications." The intention is to do this while respecting privacy concerns, which have often been expressed when such functions have been discussed in the past.
Because many messages are sent between the Internet and other messaging systems (such as X.400 or the proprietary "LAN-based" systems), the MDN protocol is designed to be useful in a multiprotocol messaging environment. To this end, the protocol described in this memo provides for the carriage of "foreign" addresses, in addition to those normally used in Internet Mail. Additional attributes may also be defined to support "tunneling" of foreign notifications through Internet Mail.
This document is an Internet Standard. It obsoletes RFC 3798 and updates RFC 2046 (message/partial media type handling) and RFC 3461 (Original-Recipient header field generation requirement).
RFC 8058: Signaling One-Click Functionality for List Email Headers
Proposed Standard- J. Levine
- T. Herkula
- January 2017
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document describes a method for signaling a one-click function for the List-Unsubscribe email header field. The need for this arises out of the actuality that mail software sometimes fetches URLs in mail header fields, and thereby accidentally triggers unsubscriptions in the case of the List-Unsubscribe header field.
Abstract
This document describes a method for signaling a one-click function for the List-Unsubscribe email header field. The need for this arises out of the actuality that mail software sometimes fetches URLs in mail header fields, and thereby accidentally triggers unsubscriptions in the case of the List-Unsubscribe header field.
RFC 7912: Message Authorizing Email Header Field and Its Use for the Draft and Release Procedure
Informational- A. Melnikov
- June 2016
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document describes a procedure for when a Military Message Handling System (MMHS) message is composed by one user and is only released to the mail transfer system when one or more Authorizing Users authorize release of the message by adding the MMHS-Authorizing-Users header field. The resulting message can be optionally signed by the sender and/or reviewer, allowing recipients to verify both the original signature (if any) and the review signatures.
Abstract
This document describes a procedure for when a Military Message Handling System (MMHS) message is composed by one user and is only released to the mail transfer system when one or more Authorizing Users authorize release of the message by adding the MMHS-Authorizing-Users header field. The resulting message can be optionally signed by the sender and/or reviewer, allowing recipients to verify both the original signature (if any) and the review signatures.
RFC 7601: Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status
Proposed Standard- M. Kucherawy
- August 2015
- IETF publication
- Applications and Real-Time Area
Abstract
This document specifies a message header field called Authentication- Results for use with electronic mail messages to indicate the results of message authentication efforts. Any receiver-side software, such as mail filters or Mail User Agents (MUAs), can use this header field to relay that information in a convenient and meaningful way to users or to make sorting and filtering decisions.
Obsoleted by RFC 8601
Abstract
This document specifies a message header field called Authentication- Results for use with electronic mail messages to indicate the results of message authentication efforts. Any receiver-side software, such as mail filters or Mail User Agents (MUAs), can use this header field to relay that information in a convenient and meaningful way to users or to make sorting and filtering decisions.
RFC 7259: The Jabber-ID Header Field
Informational- P. Saint-Andre
- May 2014
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document defines a header field that enables the author of an email or netnews message to include a Jabber ID in the message header block for the purpose of associating the author with a particular Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) address.
Abstract
This document defines a header field that enables the author of an email or netnews message to include a Jabber ID in the message header block for the purpose of associating the author with a particular Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) address.
RFC 7001: Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status
Proposed Standard- M. Kucherawy
- September 2013
- IETF publication
- Applications and Real-Time Area
Abstract
This document specifies a message header field called Authentication- Results for use with electronic mail messages to indicate the results of message authentication efforts. Any receiver-side software, such as mail filters or Mail User Agents (MUAs), can use this header field to relay that information in a convenient and meaningful way to users or to make sorting and filtering decisions.
Obsoleted by RFC 7601
Abstract
This document specifies a message header field called Authentication- Results for use with electronic mail messages to indicate the results of message authentication efforts. Any receiver-side software, such as mail filters or Mail User Agents (MUAs), can use this header field to relay that information in a convenient and meaningful way to users or to make sorting and filtering decisions.
RFC 6854: Update to Internet Message Format to Allow Group Syntax in the "From:" and "Sender:" Header Fields
Proposed Standard- B. Leiba
- March 2013
- IETF publication
Abstract
The Internet Message Format (RFC 5322) allows "group" syntax in some email header fields, such as "To:" and "CC:", but not in "From:" or "Sender:". This document updates RFC 5322 to relax that restriction, allowing group syntax in those latter fields, as well as in "Resent-From:" and "Resent-Sender:", in certain situations.
Abstract
The Internet Message Format (RFC 5322) allows "group" syntax in some email header fields, such as "To:" and "CC:", but not in "From:" or "Sender:". This document updates RFC 5322 to relax that restriction, allowing group syntax in those latter fields, as well as in "Resent-From:" and "Resent-Sender:", in certain situations.
RFC 6532: Internationalized Email Headers
Proposed Standard- A. Yang
- S. Steele
- N. Freed
- February 2012
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
Internet mail was originally limited to 7-bit ASCII. MIME added support for the use of 8-bit character sets in body parts, and also defined an encoded-word construct so other character sets could be used in certain header field values. However, full internationalization of electronic mail requires additional enhancements to allow the use of Unicode, including characters outside the ASCII repertoire, in mail addresses as well as direct use of Unicode in header fields like "From:", "To:", and "Subject:", without requiring the use of complex encoded-word constructs. This document specifies an enhancement to the Internet Message Format and to MIME that allows use of Unicode in mail addresses and most header field content.
This specification updates Section 6.4 of RFC 2045 to eliminate the restriction prohibiting the use of non-identity content-transfer- encodings on subtypes of "message/". [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
Internet mail was originally limited to 7-bit ASCII. MIME added support for the use of 8-bit character sets in body parts, and also defined an encoded-word construct so other character sets could be used in certain header field values. However, full internationalization of electronic mail requires additional enhancements to allow the use of Unicode, including characters outside the ASCII repertoire, in mail addresses as well as direct use of Unicode in header fields like "From:", "To:", and "Subject:", without requiring the use of complex encoded-word constructs. This document specifies an enhancement to the Internet Message Format and to MIME that allows use of Unicode in mail addresses and most header field content.
This specification updates Section 6.4 of RFC 2045 to eliminate the restriction prohibiting the use of non-identity content-transfer- encodings on subtypes of "message/". [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5451: Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status
Proposed Standard- M. Kucherawy
- April 2009
- IETF publication
Abstract
This memo defines a new header field for use with electronic mail messages to indicate the results of message authentication efforts. Any receiver-side software, such as mail filters or Mail User Agents (MUAs), may use this message header field to relay that information in a convenient way to users or to make sorting and filtering decisions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 7001
Abstract
This memo defines a new header field for use with electronic mail messages to indicate the results of message authentication efforts. Any receiver-side software, such as mail filters or Mail User Agents (MUAs), may use this message header field to relay that information in a convenient way to users or to make sorting and filtering decisions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5322: Internet Message Format
Draft Standard- P. Resnick
- October 2008
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document specifies the Internet Message Format (IMF), a syntax for text messages that are sent between computer users, within the framework of "electronic mail" messages. This specification is a revision of Request For Comments (RFC) 2822, which itself superseded Request For Comments (RFC) 822, "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", updating it to reflect current practice and incorporating incremental changes that were specified in other RFCs. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies the Internet Message Format (IMF), a syntax for text messages that are sent between computer users, within the framework of "electronic mail" messages. This specification is a revision of Request For Comments (RFC) 2822, which itself superseded Request For Comments (RFC) 822, "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", updating it to reflect current practice and incorporating incremental changes that were specified in other RFCs. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5335: Internationalized Email Headers
Experimental- A. Yang
- September 2008
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
Full internationalization of electronic mail requires not only the capabilities to transmit non-ASCII content, to encode selected information in specific header fields, and to use non-ASCII characters in envelope addresses. It also requires being able to express those addresses and the information based on them in mail header fields. This document specifies an experimental variant of Internet mail that permits the use of Unicode encoded in UTF-8, rather than ASCII, as the base form for Internet email header field. This form is permitted in transmission only if authorized by an SMTP extension, as specified in an associated specification. This specification Updates section 6.4 of RFC 2045 to conform with the requirements. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Obsoleted by RFC 6532
Abstract
Full internationalization of electronic mail requires not only the capabilities to transmit non-ASCII content, to encode selected information in specific header fields, and to use non-ASCII characters in envelope addresses. It also requires being able to express those addresses and the information based on them in mail header fields. This document specifies an experimental variant of Internet mail that permits the use of Unicode encoded in UTF-8, rather than ASCII, as the base form for Internet email header field. This form is permitted in transmission only if authorized by an SMTP extension, as specified in an associated specification. This specification Updates section 6.4 of RFC 2045 to conform with the requirements. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
RFC 5064: The Archived-At Message Header Field
Proposed Standard- M. Duerst
- December 2007
- IETF publication
Abstract
This memo defines a new email header field, Archived-At:, to provide a direct link to the archived form of an individual email message. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo defines a new email header field, Archived-At:, to provide a direct link to the archived form of an individual email message. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5068: BCP 134: Email Submission Operations: Access and Accountability Requirements
Best Current Practice- C. Hutzler
- D. Crocker
- P. Resnick
- E. Allman
- T. Finch
- November 2007
- IETF publication
Abstract
Email has become a popular distribution service for a variety of socially unacceptable, mass-effect purposes. The most obvious ones include spam and worms. This note recommends conventions for the operation of email submission and transport services between independent operators, such as enterprises and Internet Service Providers. Its goal is to improve lines of accountability for controlling abusive uses of the Internet mail service. To this end, this document offers recommendations for constructive operational policies between independent operators of email submission and transmission services.
Email authentication technologies are aimed at providing assurances and traceability between internetworked networks. In many email services, the weakest link in the chain of assurances is initial submission of a message. This document offers recommendations for constructive operational policies for this first step of email sending, the submission (or posting) of email into the transmission network. Relaying and delivery entail policies that occur subsequent to submission and are outside the scope of this document. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Abstract
Email has become a popular distribution service for a variety of socially unacceptable, mass-effect purposes. The most obvious ones include spam and worms. This note recommends conventions for the operation of email submission and transport services between independent operators, such as enterprises and Internet Service Providers. Its goal is to improve lines of accountability for controlling abusive uses of the Internet mail service. To this end, this document offers recommendations for constructive operational policies between independent operators of email submission and transmission services.
Email authentication technologies are aimed at providing assurances and traceability between internetworked networks. In many email services, the weakest link in the chain of assurances is initial submission of a message. This document offers recommendations for constructive operational policies for this first step of email sending, the submission (or posting) of email into the transmission network. Relaying and delivery entail policies that occur subsequent to submission and are outside the scope of this document. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
RFC 3864: BCP 90: Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields
Best Current Practice- G. Klyne
- M. Nottingham
- J. Mogul
- September 2004
- IETF publication
Abstract
This specification defines registration procedures for the message header fields used by Internet mail, HTTP, Netnews and other applications. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Abstract
This specification defines registration procedures for the message header fields used by Internet mail, HTTP, Netnews and other applications. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
RFC 3865: A No Soliciting Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service Extension
Proposed Standard- C. Malamud
- September 2004
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document proposes an extension to Soliciting Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) for an electronic mail equivalent to the real-world "No Soliciting" sign. In addition to the service extension, a new message header and extensions to the existing "received" message header are described. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document proposes an extension to Soliciting Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) for an electronic mail equivalent to the real-world "No Soliciting" sign. In addition to the service extension, a new message header and extensions to the existing "received" message header are described. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3282: Content Language Headers
Draft Standard- H. Alvestrand
- May 2002
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document defines a "Content-language:" header, for use in cases where one desires to indicate the language of something that has RFC 822-like headers, like MIME body parts or Web documents, and an "Accept-Language:" header for use in cases where one wishes to indicate one's preferences with regard to language. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines a "Content-language:" header, for use in cases where one desires to indicate the language of something that has RFC 822-like headers, like MIME body parts or Web documents, and an "Accept-Language:" header for use in cases where one wishes to indicate one's preferences with regard to language. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2821: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
Proposed Standard- J. Klensin
- April 2001
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This document is a self-contained specification of the basic protocol for the Internet electronic mail transport. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 5321
Abstract
This document is a self-contained specification of the basic protocol for the Internet electronic mail transport. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2822: Internet Message Format
Proposed Standard- P. Resnick
- April 2001
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This document specifies a syntax for text messages that are sent between computer users, within the framework of "electronic mail" messages. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 5322
Abstract
This document specifies a syntax for text messages that are sent between computer users, within the framework of "electronic mail" messages. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2369: The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax for Core Mail List Commands and their Transport through Message Header Fields
Proposed Standard- G. Neufeld
- J. Baer
- July 1998
- Legacy publication
Abstract
The mailing list command specification header fields are a set of structured fields to be added to email messages sent by email distribution lists. By including these header fields, list servers can make it possible for mail clients to provide automated tools for users to perform list functions. This could take the form of a menu item, push button, or other user interface element. The intent is to simplify the user experience, providing a common interface to the often cryptic and varied mailing list manager commands. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
The mailing list command specification header fields are a set of structured fields to be added to email messages sent by email distribution lists. By including these header fields, list servers can make it possible for mail clients to provide automated tools for users to perform list functions. This could take the form of a menu item, push button, or other user interface element. The intent is to simplify the user experience, providing a common interface to the often cryptic and varied mailing list manager commands. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2298: An Extensible Message Format for Message Disposition Notifications
Proposed Standard- R. Fajman
- March 1998
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This memo defines a MIME content-type that may be used by a mail user agent (UA) or electronic mail gateway to report the disposition of a message after it has been sucessfully delivered to a recipient. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 3798
Abstract
This memo defines a MIME content-type that may be used by a mail user agent (UA) or electronic mail gateway to report the disposition of a message after it has been sucessfully delivered to a recipient. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2234: Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF
Proposed Standard- D. Crocker
- P. Overell
- November 1997
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
In the early days of the Arpanet, each specification contained its own definition of ABNF. This included the email specifications, RFC733 and then RFC822 which have come to be the common citations for defining ABNF. The current document separates out that definition, to permit selective reference. Predictably, it also provides some modifications and enhancements. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 4234
Abstract
In the early days of the Arpanet, each specification contained its own definition of ABNF. This included the email specifications, RFC733 and then RFC822 which have come to be the common citations for defining ABNF. The current document separates out that definition, to permit selective reference. Predictably, it also provides some modifications and enhancements. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2076: Common Internet Message Headers
Informational- J. Palme
- February 1997
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This memo contains a table of commonly occurring headers in headings of e-mail messages. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
Abstract
This memo contains a table of commonly occurring headers in headings of e-mail messages. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
RFC 2047: MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text
Draft Standard- K. Moore
- November 1996
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This particular document is the third document in the series. It describes extensions to RFC 822 to allow non-US-ASCII text data in Internet mail header fields. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This particular document is the third document in the series. It describes extensions to RFC 822 to allow non-US-ASCII text data in Internet mail header fields. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1891: SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications
Proposed Standard- K. Moore
- January 1996
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This memo defines an extension to the SMTP service, which allows an SMTP client to specify (a) that delivery status notifications (DSNs) should be generated under certain conditions, (b) whether such notifications should return the contents of the message, and (c) additional information, to be returned with a DSN, that allows the sender to identify both the recipient(s) for which the DSN was issued, and the transaction in which the original message was sent. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 3461
Abstract
This memo defines an extension to the SMTP service, which allows an SMTP client to specify (a) that delivery status notifications (DSNs) should be generated under certain conditions, (b) whether such notifications should return the contents of the message, and (c) additional information, to be returned with a DSN, that allows the sender to identify both the recipient(s) for which the DSN was issued, and the transaction in which the original message was sent. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1892: The Multipart/Report Content Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages
Proposed Standard- G. Vaudreuil
- January 1996
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
The Multipart/Report MIME content-type is a general "family" or "container" type for electronic mail reports of any kind. Although this memo defines only the use of the Multipart/Report content-type with respect to delivery status reports, mail processing programs will benefit if a single content-type is used to for all kinds of reports. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 3462
Abstract
The Multipart/Report MIME content-type is a general "family" or "container" type for electronic mail reports of any kind. Although this memo defines only the use of the Multipart/Report content-type with respect to delivery status reports, mail processing programs will benefit if a single content-type is used to for all kinds of reports. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1893: Enhanced Mail System Status Codes
Proposed Standard- G. Vaudreuil
- January 1996
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
There currently is not a standard mechanism for the reporting of mail system errors except for the limited set offered by SMTP and the system specific text descriptions sent in mail messages. There is a pressing need for a rich machine readable status code for use in delivery status notifications [DSN]. This document proposes a new set of status codes for this purpose. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 3463
Abstract
There currently is not a standard mechanism for the reporting of mail system errors except for the limited set offered by SMTP and the system specific text descriptions sent in mail messages. There is a pressing need for a rich machine readable status code for use in delivery status notifications [DSN]. This document proposes a new set of status codes for this purpose. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1894: An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications
Proposed Standard- K. Moore
- G. Vaudreuil
- January 1996
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This memo defines a 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. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 3464
Abstract
This memo defines a 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. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1522: MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Two: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text
Draft Standard- K. Moore
- September 1993
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This memo describes an extension to the message format defined in RFC 1521, to allow the representation of character sets other than ASCII in RFC 822 (STD 11) message headers. The extensions described were designed to be highly compatible with existing Internet mail handling software, and to be easily implemented in mail readers that support RFC 1521.
Obsoleted by RFC 2045, RFC 2046, RFC 2047, RFC 2048, RFC 2049
Abstract
This memo describes an extension to the message format defined in RFC 1521, to allow the representation of character sets other than ASCII in RFC 822 (STD 11) message headers. The extensions described were designed to be highly compatible with existing Internet mail handling software, and to be easily implemented in mail readers that support RFC 1521.
RFC 1505: Encoding Header Field for Internet Messages
Experimental- A. Costanzo
- D. Robinson
- R. Ullmann
- August 1993
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This document expands upon the elective experimental Encoding header field which permits the mailing of multi-part, multi-structured messages. It replaces RFC 1154. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.
Abstract
This document expands upon the elective experimental Encoding header field which permits the mailing of multi-part, multi-structured messages. It replaces RFC 1154. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.
RFC 1342: Representation of Non-ASCII Text in Internet Message Headers
Proposed Standard- K. Moore
- June 1992
- IETF publication
- Applications Area
Abstract
This memo describes an extension to the message format defined in [1] (known to the IETF Mail Extensions Working Group as "RFC 1341"), to allow the representation of character sets other than ASCII in RFC 822 message headers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 1522
Abstract
This memo describes an extension to the message format defined in [1] (known to the IETF Mail Extensions Working Group as "RFC 1341"), to allow the representation of character sets other than ASCII in RFC 822 message headers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 1153: Digest message format
Experimental- F.J. Wancho
- April 1990
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This memo describes the de facto standard Digest Message Format. This is an elective experimental protocol.
Abstract
This memo describes the de facto standard Digest Message Format. This is an elective experimental protocol.
RFC 1154: Encoding header field for internet messages
Experimental- D. Robinson
- R. Ullmann
- April 1990
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This RFC proposes an elective experimental Encoding header field to permit the mailing of multi-part, multi-structured messages. The use of Encoding updates RFC 1049 (Content-Type), and is a suggested update to RFCs 1113, 1114, and 1115 (Privacy Enhancement).
Obsoleted by RFC 1505
Abstract
This RFC proposes an elective experimental Encoding header field to permit the mailing of multi-part, multi-structured messages. The use of Encoding updates RFC 1049 (Content-Type), and is a suggested update to RFCs 1113, 1114, and 1115 (Privacy Enhancement).
RFC 934: Proposed standard for message encapsulation
Unknown- M.T. Rose
- E.A. Stefferud
- January 1985
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This memo concerns itself with message forwarding. Forwarding can be thought of as encapsulating one or more messages inside another. Although this is useful for transfer of past correspondence to new recipients, without a decapsulation process (which this memo terms "bursting"), the forwarded messages are of little use to the recipients because they can not be distributed, forwarded, replied-to, or otherwise processed as separate individual messages. In order to burst a message it is necessary to know how the component messages were encapsulated in the draft. At present there is no unambiguous standard for interest group digests. This RFC proposes a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Abstract
This memo concerns itself with message forwarding. Forwarding can be thought of as encapsulating one or more messages inside another. Although this is useful for transfer of past correspondence to new recipients, without a decapsulation process (which this memo terms "bursting"), the forwarded messages are of little use to the recipients because they can not be distributed, forwarded, replied-to, or otherwise processed as separate individual messages. In order to burst a message it is necessary to know how the component messages were encapsulated in the draft. At present there is no unambiguous standard for interest group digests. This RFC proposes a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
RFC 886: Proposed standard for message header munging
Unknown- M.T. Rose
- December 1983
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This RFC specifies a draft standard for the ARPA Internet community. It describes the rules to be used when transforming mail from the conventions of one message system to those of another message system. In particular, the treatment of header fields, and recipient addresses is specified.
Abstract
This RFC specifies a draft standard for the ARPA Internet community. It describes the rules to be used when transforming mail from the conventions of one message system to those of another message system. In particular, the treatment of header fields, and recipient addresses is specified.
RFC 841: Specification for message format for Computer Based Message Systems
Unknown- National Bureau of Standards
- January 1983
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This RFC is FIPS 98. The purpose of distributing this document as an RFC is to make it easily accessible to the ARPA research community. This RFC does not specify a standard for the ARPA Internet. Obsoletes RFC 806.
Abstract
This RFC is FIPS 98. The purpose of distributing this document as an RFC is to make it easily accessible to the ARPA research community. This RFC does not specify a standard for the ARPA Internet. Obsoletes RFC 806.
RFC 822: STD 11: STANDARD FOR THE FORMAT OF ARPA INTERNET TEXT MESSAGES
Internet Standard- D. Crocker
- August 1982
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This document revises the specifications in RFC 733, in order to serve the needs of the larger and more complex ARPA Internet. Some of RFC 733's features failed to gain adequate acceptance. In order to simplify the standard and the software that follows it, these features have been removed. A different addressing scheme is used, to handle the case of internetwork mail; and the concept of re-transmission has been introduced. Obsoletes RFC 733, NIC 41952.
Obsoleted by RFC 2822
Abstract
This document revises the specifications in RFC 733, in order to serve the needs of the larger and more complex ARPA Internet. Some of RFC 733's features failed to gain adequate acceptance. In order to simplify the standard and the software that follows it, these features have been removed. A different addressing scheme is used, to handle the case of internetwork mail; and the concept of re-transmission has been introduced. Obsoletes RFC 733, NIC 41952.
RFC 806: Proposed Federal Information Processing Standard: Specification for message format for computer based message systems
Unknown- National Bureau of Standards
- September 1981
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This RFC deals with Computer Based Message systems which provides a basis for interaction between different CBMS by defining the format of messages passed between them. This RFC is replaced by RFC 841.
Obsoleted by RFC 841
Abstract
This RFC deals with Computer Based Message systems which provides a basis for interaction between different CBMS by defining the format of messages passed between them. This RFC is replaced by RFC 841.
RFC 561: Standardizing Network Mail Headers
Unknown- A.K. Bhushan
- K.T. Pogran
- R.S. Tomlinson
- J.E. White
- September 1973
- Legacy publication
Subscribe to message format
Get notified when:
- RFC changes to status, obsoleted by, updates, updated by, or subseries.
- New RFC added to this subject or below
- The subject was merged into another.