rfc1892
Network Working Group G. Vaudreuil
Request for Comments: 1892 Octel Network Services
Category: Standards Track January 1996
The Multipart/Report Content Type
for the Reporting of
Mail System Administrative Messages
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
1. The Multipart/Report MIME content-type
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.
The Multipart/Report content-type is defined as follows:
MIME type name: multipart
MIME subtype name: report
Required parameters: boundary, report-type
Optional parameters: none
Encoding considerations: 7bit should always be adequate
Security considerations: see section 4 of this memo.
The syntax of Multipart/Report is identical to the Multipart/Mixed
content type defined in [MIME]. When used to send a report, the
Multipart/Report content-type must be the top-level MIME content type
for any report message. The report-type parameter identifies the
type of report. The parameter is the MIME content sub-type of the
second body part of the Multipart/Report.
User agents and gateways must be able to automatically determine
that a message is a mail system report and should be processed as
such. Placing the Multipart/Report as the outermost content
provides a mechanism whereby an auto-processor may detect through
parsing the RFC 822 headers that the message is a report.
Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 1892 Multipart/Report January 1996
The Multipart/Report content-type contains either two or three sub-
parts, in the following order:
(1) [required] The first body part contains human readable message.
The purpose of this message is to provide an easily-understood
description of the condition(s) that caused the report to be
generated, for a human reader who may not have an user agent
capable of interpreting the second section of the
Multipart/Report.
The text in the first section may be in any MIME standards-track
content-type, charset, or language. Where a description of the
error is desired in several languages or several media, a
Multipart/Alternative construct may be used.
This body part may also be used to send detailed information
that cannot be easily formatted into a Message/Report body part.
(2) [required] A machine parsable body part containing an account
of the reported message handling event. The purpose of this body
part is to provide a machine-readable description of the
condition(s) which caused the report to be generated, along with
details not present in the first body part that may be useful to
human experts. An initial body part, Message/delivery-status is
defined in [DSN]
(3) [optional] A body part containing the returned message or a
portion thereof. This information may be useful to aid human
experts in diagnosing problems. (Although it may also be useful
to allow the sender to identify the message which the report was
issued, it is hoped that the envelope-id and original-recipient-
address returned in the Message/Report body part will replace
the traditional use of the returned content for this purpose.)
Return of content may be wasteful of network bandwidth and a variety
of implementation strategies can be used. Generally the sender
should choose the appropriate strategy and inform the recipient of
the required level of returned content required. In the absence of
an explicit request for level of return of content such as that
provided in [DRPT], the agent which generated the delivery service
report should return the full message content.
When data not encoded in 7 bits is to be returned, and the return
path is not guaranteed to be 8-bit capable, two options are
available. The origional message MAY be reencoded into a legal 7 bit
MIME message or the Text/RFC822-Headers content-type MAY be used to
return only the origional message headers.
Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 1892 Multipart/Report January 1996
2. The Text/RFC822-Headers MIME content-type
The Text/RFC822-Headers MIME content-type provides a mechanism to
label and return only the RFC 822 headers of a failed message. These
headers are not the complete message and should not be returned as a
Message/RFC822. The returned headers are useful for identifying the
failed message and for diagnostics based on the received: lines.
The Text/RFC822-Headers content-type is defined as follows:
MIME type name: Text
MIME subtype name: RFC822-Headers
Required parameters: None
Optional parameters: none
Encoding considerations: 7 bit is sufficient for normal RFC822
headers, however, if the headers are broken and require
encoding, they may be encoded in quoted-printable.
Security considerations: see section 4 of this memo.
The Text/RFC822-headers body part should contain all the RFC822
header lines from the message which caused the report. The RFC822
headers include all lines prior to the blank line in the message.
They include the MIME-Version and MIME Content- headers.
3. References
[DSN] Moore, K., and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for
Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 1894, University of
Tennessee, Octel Network Services, January 1996.
[RFC822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet Text
Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, UDEL, August 1982.
[MIME] Borenstein, N., and N. Freed, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions", RFC 1521, Bellcore, Innosoft, June 1992.
[DRPT] Moore, K., "SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status
Notifications", RFC 1891, University of Tennessee, January 1996.
4. Security Considerations
Automated use of report types without authentication presents several
security issues. Forging negative reports presents the opportunity
for denial-of-service attacks when the reports are used for automated
maintenance of directories or mailing lists. Forging positive
reports may cause the sender to incorrectly believe a message was
delivered when it was not.
Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 1892 Multipart/Report January 1996
5. Author's Address
Gregory M. Vaudreuil
Octel Network Services
17060 Dallas Parkway
Dallas, TX 75248-1905
Phone: +1-214-733-2722
EMail: Greg.Vaudreuil@Octel.com
Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 4]
ERRATA
