As per Relevance of the word notification, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group R.
Request for Comments: 2298 National Institutes of
Category: Standards Track March 1998
An Extensible Message
for Message Disposition
Status of this
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited
Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved
This memo defines a MIME content-type that may be used by a mail
agent (UA) or electronic mail gateway to report the disposition of
message after it has been sucessfully delivered to a recipient.
content-type is intended to be machine-processable.
message headers are also defined to permit Message
Notifications (MDNs) to be requested by the sender of a message.
purpose is to extend Internet Mail to support functionality
found in other messaging systems, such as X.400 and the
"LAN-based" systems, and often referred to as "read receipts,"
"acknowledgements," or "receipt notifications." The intention is
do this while respecting the privacy concerns that have often
expressed when such functions have been discussed in the past
Because many messages are sent between the Internet and
messaging systems (such as X.400 or the proprietary "LAN-based
systems), the MDN protocol is designed to be useful in a multi
protocol messaging environment. To this end, the protocol
in this memo provides for the carriage of "foreign" addresses,
addition to those normally used in Internet Mail.
attributes may also be defined to support "tunneling" of
notifications through Internet Mail
Fajman Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
Table of
1. Introduction ............................................ 2
2. Requesting Message Disposition Notifications ............ 3
3. Format of a Message Disposition Notification ............ 7
4. Timeline of events ...................................... 17
5. Conformance and Usage Requirements ...................... 18
6. Security Considerations ................................. 19
7. Collected Grammar ....................................... 20
8. Guidelines for Gatewaying MDNs .......................... 22
9. Example ................................................. 24
10. IANA Registration Forms ................................. 25
11. Acknowledgments ......................................... 26
12. References .............................................. 26
13. Author's Address ........................................ 27
14. Copyright ............................................... 28
1.
This memo defines a MIME content-type [5] for message
notifications (MDNs). An MDN can be used to notify the sender of
message of any of several conditions that may occur after
delivery, such as display of the message contents, printing of
message, deletion (without display) of the message, or
recipient's refusal to provide MDNs. The "message/disposition
notification" content-type defined herein is intended for use
the framework of the "multipart/report" content type defined in
1892 [7].
This memo defines the format of the notifications and the RFC 822
headers used to request them
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
1.1
The MDNs defined in this memo are expected to serve several purposes
(a) Inform human beings of the disposition of messages
succcessful delivery, in a manner which is largely
of human language
(b) Allow mail user agents to keep track of the disposition
messages sent, by associating returned MDNs with earlier
transmissions
Fajman Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
(c) Convey disposition notification requests and
notifications between Internet Mail and "foreign" mail
via a gateway
(d) Allow "foreign" notifications to be tunneled through a MIME
capable message system and back into the original
system that issued the original notification, or even to a
messaging system
(e) Allow language-independent, yet reasonably precise,
of the disposition of a message to be delivered
1.2
These purposes place the following constraints on the
protocol
(a) It must be readable by humans, as well as being machine
parsable
(b) It must provide enough information to allow message senders (
their user agents) to unambiguously associate an MDN with
message that was sent and the original recipient address
which the MDN is issued (if such information is available),
if the message was forwarded to another recipient address
(c) It must also be able to describe the disposition of a
independent of any particular human language or of
terminology of any particular mail system
(d) The specification must be extensible in order to
future requirements
2. Requesting Message Disposition
Message disposition notifications are requested by including
Disposition-Notification-To header in the message.
information to be used by the recipient's UA in generating the
may be provided by including Original-Recipient and/or Disposition
Notification-Options headers in the message
2.1 The Disposition-Notification-To
A request that the receiving user agent issue message
notifications is made by placing a Disposition-Notification-To
into the message. The syntax of the header, using the ABNF of
822 [2],
Fajman Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
mdn-request-header = "Disposition-Notification-To" ":" 1#
The mailbox token is as specified in RFC 822 [2].
The presence of a Disposition-Notification-To header in a message
merely a request for an MDN. The recipients' user agents are
free to silently ignore such a request. Alternatively, an
denial of the request for information about the disposition of
message may be sent using the "denied" disposition in an MDN
An MDN MUST NOT itself have a Disposition-Notification-To header
An MDN MUST NOT be generated in response to an MDN
At most one MDN may be issued on behalf of each particular
by their user agent. That is, once an MDN has been issued on
of a recipient, no further MDNs may be issued on behalf of
recipient, even if another disposition is performed on the message
However, if a message is forwarded, an MDN may been issued for
recipient doing the forwarding and the recipient of the
message may also cause an MDN to be generated
While Internet standards normally do not specify the behavior of
interfaces, it is strongly recommended that the user agent obtain
user's consent before sending an MDN. This consent could be
for each message through some sort of prompt or dialog box,
globally through the user's setting of a preference. The user
also indicate globally that MDNs are never to be sent or that
"denied" MDN is always sent in response to a request for an MDN
MDNs SHOULD NOT be sent automatically if the address in
Disposition-Notification-To header differs from the address in
Return-Path header (see RFC 822 [2]). In this case,
from the user SHOULD be obtained, if possible. If obtaining
is not possible (e.g., because the user is not online at the time),
then an MDN SHOULD NOT be sent
Confirmation from the user SHOULD be obtained (or no MDN sent)
there is no Return-Path header in the message, or if there is
than one distinct address in the Disposition-Notification-To header
The comparison of the addresses should be done using only the addr
spec (local-part "@" domain) portion, excluding any phrase and route
The comparison MUST be case-sensitive for the local-part and case
insensitive for the domain part
If the message contains more than one Return-Path header,
implementation may pick one to use for the comparison, or treat
situation as a failure of the comparison
Fajman Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
The reason for not automatically sending an MDN if the
fails or more than one address is specified is to reduce
possibilities for mail loops and use of MDNs for mail bombing
A message that contains a Disposition-Notification-To header
also contain a Message-ID header as specified in RFC 822 [2].
will permit automatic correlation of MDNs with original messages
user agents
If it is desired to request message disposition notifications
some recipients and not others, two copies of the message should
sent, one with an Disposition-Notification-To header and one without
Many of the other headers of the message (e.g., To, cc) will be
same in both copies. The recipients in the respective
envelopes determine for whom message disposition notifications
requested and for whom they are not. If desired, the Message-
header may be the same in both copies of the message. Note
there are other situations (e.g., bcc) in which it is necessary
send multiple copies of a message with slightly different headers
The combination of such situations and the need to request MDNs for
subset of all recipients may result in more than two copies of
message being sent, some with a Disposition- Notification-To
and some without
Messages posted to newsgroups SHOULD NOT have a Disposition
Notification-To header
2.2 The Disposition-Notification-Options
Future extensions to this specification may require that
be supplied to the recipient's UA for additional control over how
what MDNs are generated. The Disposition-Notification-Options
provides an extensible mechanism for such information. The syntax
this header, using the ABNF of RFC 822 [2],
Disposition-Notification-Options =
"Disposition-Notification-Options" ":"
disposition-notification-
disposition-notification-parameters = parameter *(";" parameter
parameter = attribute "=" importance "," 1#
importance = "required" / "optional
The definitions of attribute and value are as in the definition
the Content-Type header in RFC 2045 [4].
Fajman Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
An importance of "required" indicates that interpretation of
parameter is necessary for proper generation of an MDN in response
this request. If a UA does not understand the meaning of
parameter, it MUST NOT generate an MDN with any disposition
other than "failed" in response to the request. An importance
"optional" indicates that a UA that does not understand the
of this parameter MAY generate an MDN in response anyway,
the value of the parameter
No parameters are defined in this specification. Parameters may
defined in the future by later revisions or extensions to
specification. Parameter attribute names beginning with "X-"
never be defined as standard names; such names are reserved
experimental use. MDN parameter names not beginning with "X-"
be registered with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
described in a standards-track RFC or an experimental RFC approved
the IESG. See Section 10 for a registration form
If a required parameter is not understood or contains some sort
error, the receiving UA SHOULD issue an MDN with a disposition
of "failed" (see Section 3.2.6) and include a Failure field (
Section 3.2.7) that further describes the problem. MDNs with the
disposition type of "failed" and a "Failure" field MAY also
generated when other types of errors are detected in the
of the Disposition-Notification-Options header
However, an MDN with a disposition type of "failed" MUST NOT
generated if the user has indicated a preferance that MDNs are not
be sent. If user consent would be required for an MDN of some
disposition type to be sent, user consent SHOULD also be
before sending an MDN with a disposition type of "failed".
2.3 The Original-Recipient
Since electronic mail addresses may be rewritten while the message
in transit, it is useful for the original recipient address to
made available by the delivering MTA. The delivering MTA may be
to obtain this information from the ORCPT parameter of the SMTP
TO command, as defined in RFC 1891 [8]. If this information
available, the delivering MTA SHOULD insert an Original-
header at the beginning of the message (along with the Return-
header). The delivering MTA MAY delete any other Original-
headers that occur in the message. The syntax of this header,
the ABNF of RFC 822 [2], is as
original-recipient-header =
"Original-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-
Fajman Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
The address-type and generic-address token are as as specified in
description of the Original-Recipient field in section 3.2.3.
The purpose of carrying the original recipient information
returning it in the MDN is to permit automatic correlation of
with the original message on a per-recipient basis
2.4 Use with the Message/Partial Content
The use of the headers Disposition-Notification-To, Disposition
Notification-Options, and Original-Recipient with the
Message/partial content type (RFC 2046 [5]) requires
definition
When a message is segmented into two or more message/
fragments, the three headers mentioned in the above paragraph
be placed in the "inner" or "enclosed" message (using the terms
RFC 2046 [5]). These headers SHOULD NOT be used in the headers
any of the fragments themselves
When the multiple message/partial fragments are reassembled,
following applies. If these headers occur along with the
headers of a message/partial fragment message, they pertain to an
to be generated for the fragment. If these headers occur in
headers of the "inner" or "enclosed" message (using the terms of
2046 [5]), they pertain to an MDN to be generated for the
message. Section 5.2.2.1 of RFC 2046 [5]) is amended to
that, in addition to the headers specified there, the three
described in this specification are to be appended, in order, to
headers of the reassembled message. Any occurances of the
headers defined here in the headers of the initial enclosing
must not be copied to the reassembled message
3. Format of a Message Disposition
A message disposition notification is a MIME message with a top
level content-type of multipart/report (defined in RFC 1892 [7]).
When a multipart/report content is used to transmit an MDN
(a) The report-type parameter of the multipart/report content
"disposition-notification".
(b) The first component of the multipart/report contains a human
readable explanation of the MDN, as described in RFC 1892 [7].
(c) The second component of the multipart/report is of content-
message/disposition-notification, described in section 3.1
this document
Fajman Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
(d) If the original message or a portion of the message is to
returned to the sender, it appears as the third component of
multipart/report. The decision of whether or not to return
message or part of the message is up to the UA generating
MDN. However, in the case of encrypted messages
MDNs, encrypted message text MUST be returned, if it is
at all, only in its original encrypted form
NOTE: For message dispostion notifications gatewayed
foreign systems, the headers of the original message may not
available. In this case the third component of the MDN may
omitted, or it may contain "simulated" RFC 822 headers
contain equivalent information. In particular, it is
desirable to preserve the subject and date fields from
original message
The MDN MUST be addressed (in both the message header and
transport envelope) to the address(es) from the Disposition
Notification-To header from the original message for which the MDN
being generated
The From field of the message header of the MDN MUST contain
address of the person for whom the message disposition
is being issued
The envelope sender address (i.e., SMTP MAIL FROM) of the MDN MUST
null (<>), specifying that no Delivery Status Notification
or other messages indicating successful or unsuccessful delivery
to be sent in response to an MDN
A message disposition notification MUST NOT itself request an MDN
That is, it MUST NOT contain a Disposition-Notification-To header
The Message-ID header (if present) for an MDN MUST be different
the Message-ID of the message for which the MDN is being issued
A particular MDN describes the disposition of exactly one message
exactly one recipient. Multiple MDNs may be generated as a result
one message submission, one per recipient. However, due to
circumstances described in Section 2.1, MDNs may not be generated
some recipients for which MDNs were requested
3.1 The message/disposition-notification content-
The message/disposition-notification content-type is defined
follows
MIME type name:
Fajman Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
MIME subtype name: disposition-
Optional parameters:
Encoding considerations: "7bit" encoding is sufficient
MUST be used to maintain
when viewed by non-MIME
readers
Security considerations: discussed in section 6 of this memo
The message/disposition-notification report type for use in
multipart/report is "disposition-notification".
The body of a message/disposition-notification consists of one
more "fields" formatted according to the ABNF of RFC 822
"fields" (see [2]). Using the ABNF of RFC 822, the syntax of
message/disposition-notification content is as follows
disposition-notification-content = [ reporting-ua-field CRLF ]
[ mdn-gateway-field CRLF ]
[ original-recipient-field CRLF ]
final-recipient-field
[ original-message-id-field CRLF ]
disposition-field
*( failure-field CRLF )
*( error-field CRLF )
*( warning-field CRLF )
*( extension-field CRLF )
3.1.1 General conventions for
Since these fields are defined according to the rules of RFC 822 [2],
the same conventions for continuation lines and comments apply
Notification fields may be continued onto multiple lines by
each additional line with a SPACE or HTAB. Text which appears
parentheses is considered a comment and not part of the contents
that notification field. Field names are case-insensitive, so
names of notification fields may be spelled in any combination
upper and lower case letters. Comments in notification fields
use the "encoded-word" construct defined in RFC 2047 [6].
3.1.2 "*-type"
Several fields consist of a "-type" subfield, followed by a semi
colon, followed by "*text". For these fields, the keyword used
the address-type or MTA-type subfield indicates the expected
of the address or MTA-name that follows
The "-type" subfields are defined as follows
Fajman Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
(a) An "address-type" specifies the format of a mailbox address
For example, Internet Mail addresses use the "rfc822" address
type
address-type =
(b) An "MTA-name-type" specifies the format of a mail
agent name. For example, for an SMTP server on an
host, the MTA name is the domain name of that host, and
"dns" MTA-name-type is used
mta-name-type =
Values for address-type and mta-name-type are case-insensitive.
address-type values of "RFC822" and "rfc822" are equivalent
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) will maintain
registry of address-type and mta-name-type values, along
descriptions of the meanings of each, or a reference to a one or
specifications that provide such descriptions. (The "rfc822"
address-type is defined in RFC 1891 [8].) Registration forms
address-type and mta-name-type appear in RFC 1894 [9].
IANA will not accept registrations for any address-type name
begins with "X-". These type names are reserved for
use
3.1.3 Lexical tokens imported from RFC 822
The following lexical tokens, defined in RFC 822 [2], are used in
ABNF grammar for MDNs: atom, CRLF, mailbox, msg-id, text
3.2 Message/disposition-notification
3.2.1 The Reporting-UA
reporting-ua-field = "Reporting-UA" ":" ua-
[ ";" ua-product ]
ua-name = *
ua-product = *
The Reporting-UA field is defined as follows
A MDN describes the disposition of a message after it has
delivered to a recipient. In all cases, the Reporting-UA is the
that performed the disposition described in the MDN. This field
Fajman Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
optional, but recommended. For Internet Mail user agents, it
recommended that this field contain both the DNS name of
particular instance of the UA that generated the MDN and the name
the product. For example
Reporting-UA: rogers-mac.dcrt.nih.gov; Foomail 97.1
If the reporting UA consists of more than one component (e.g., a
program and plug-ins), this may be indicated by including a list
product names
3.2.2 The MDN-Gateway
The MDN-Gateway field indicates the name of the gateway or MTA
translated a foreign (non-Internet) message disposition
into this MDN. This field MUST appear in any MDN which
translated by a gateway from a foreign system into MDN format,
MUST NOT appear otherwise
mdn-gateway-field = "MDN-Gateway" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-
mta-name = *
For gateways into Internet Mail, the MTA-name-type will normally
"smtp", and the mta-name will be the Internet domain name of
gateway
3.2.3 Original-Recipient
The Original-Recipient field indicates the original recipient
as specified by the sender of the message for which the MDN is
issued. For Internet Mail messages the value of
Original-Recipient field is obtained from the Original-
header from the message for which the MDN is being generated.
there is no Original-Recipient header in the message, then
Original-Recipient field MUST be omitted, unless the same
is reliably available some other way. If there is an Original
Recipient header in the original message (or original
information is reliably available some other way), then
Original-Recipient field must be supplied. If there is more than
Original-Recipient header in the message, the UA may choose the
to use or act as if no Original-Recipient header is present
original-recipient-field =
"Original-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-
generic-address = *
Fajman Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
The address-type field indicates the type of the original
address. If the message originated within the Internet,
address-type field field will normally be "rfc822", and the
will be according to the syntax specified in RFC 822 [2]. The
"unknown" should be used if the Reporting UA cannot determine
type of the original recipient address from the message envelope
This address is the same as that provided by the sender and can
used to automatically correlate MDN reports with original messages
a per recipient basis
3.2.4 Final-Recipient
The Final-Recipient field indicates the recipient for which the
is being issued. This field MUST be present
The syntax of the field is as follows
final-recipient-field =
"Final-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-
The generic-address subfield of the Final-Recipient field
contain the mailbox address of the recipient (from the From header
the MDN) as it was when the MDN was generated by the UA
The Final-Recipient address may differ from the address
provided by the sender, because it may have been transformed
forwarding and gatewaying into an totally unrecognizable mess
However, in the absence of the optional Original-Recipient field,
Final-Recipient field and any returned content may be the
information available with which to correlate the MDN with
particular message recipient
The address-type subfield indicates the type of address expected
the reporting MTA in that context. Recipient addresses obtained
SMTP will normally be of address-type "rfc822".
Since mailbox addresses (including those used in the Internet) may
case sensitive, the case of alphabetic characters in the address
be preserved
3.2.5 Original-Message-ID
The Original-Message-ID field indicates the message-ID of the
for which the MDN is being issued. It is obtained from the Message
ID header of the message for which the MDN is issued. This
MUST be present if the original message contained a Message-
header. The syntax of the field
Fajman Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
original-message-id-field = "Original-Message-ID" ":" msg-
The msg-id token is as specified in RFC 822 [2].
3.2.6 Disposition
The Disposition field indicates the action performed by
Reporting-UA on behalf of the user. This field MUST be present
The syntax for the Disposition field is
disposition-field = "Disposition" ":" disposition-mode ";"
disposition-
[ '/' disposition-
*( "," dispostion-modifier ) ]
disposition-mode = action-mode "/" sending-
action-mode = "manual-action" / "automatic-action
sending-mode = "MDN-sent-manually" / "MDN-sent-automatically
disposition-type = "displayed
/ "dispatched
/ "processed
/ "deleted
/ "denied
/ "failed
disposition-modifier = ( "error" / "warning" )
/ ( "superseded" / "expired" /
"mailbox-terminated" )
/ disposition-modifier-
disposition-modifier-extension =
The disposition-mode, disposition-type and disposition-modifier
be spelled in any combination of upper and lower case characters
3.2.6.1 Disposition
The following disposition modes are defined
"manual-action" The disposition described by
disposition type was a result of
explicit instruction by the user
than some sort of automatically
action
Fajman Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
"automatic-action" The disposition described by
disposition type was a result of
automatic action, rather than an
instruction by the user for this message
"Manual-action" and "automatic-action"
mutually exclusive. One or the other
be specified
"MDN-sent-manually" The user explicity gave permission
this particular MDN to be sent
"MDN-sent-automatically" The MDN was sent because the UA
previously been configured to do
automatically
"MDN-sent-manually" and "MDN-sent
automatically" are mutually exclusive
One or the other must be specified
3.2.6.2 Disposition
The following disposition-types are defined
"displayed" The message has been displayed by the UA to
reading the recipient's mailbox. There
no guarantee that the content has
read or understood
"dispatched" The message has been sent somewhere in some
(e.g., printed, faxed, forwarded)
necessarily having been
displayed to the user. The user may
may not see the message later
"processed" The message has been processed in some manner (i.e.,
by some sort of rules or server)
being displayed to the user. The user
or may not see the message later, or
may not even be a human user
with the mailbox
"deleted" The message has been deleted. The recipient may
may not have seen the message.
recipient might "undelete" the message
a later time and read the message
Fajman Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
"denied" The recipient does not wish the sender to be
of the message's disposition. A UA
also siliently ignore message
requests in this situation
"failed" A failure occurred that prevented the
generation of an MDN. More
about the cause of the failure may
contained in a Failure field.
"failed" disposition type is not to
used for the situation in which there
is some problem in processing the
other than interpreting the request for
MDN. The "processed" or other
type with appropriate
modifiers is to be used in
situations
3.2.6.3 Disposition
The following disposition modifiers are defined
"error" An error of some sort
that prevented
processing of the message
Further information is
in an Error field
"warning" The message was
processed but some sort
exceptional condition occurred
Further information is
in a Warning field
"superseded" The message has
automatically rendered obsolete
another message received.
recipient may still access
read the message later
"expired" The message has reached
expiration date and has
automatically removed from
recipient's mailbox
"mailbox-terminated" The recipient's mailbox has
terminated and all message in
automatically removed
Fajman Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
"Obsoleted", "expired",
"terminated" are to be used
the "deleted" disposition type
the "autoaction" and "autosent
disposition modifiers
disposition-modifier-extension Additional disposition
may be defined in the future
later revisions or extensions
this specification.
value names beginning with "X-"
will never be defined as
values; such names are
for experimental use.
disposition value names
beginning with "X-" MUST
registered with the
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA
and described in a standards
track RFC or an experimental
approved by the IESG. See
10 for a registration form.
with disposition modifier
not understood by the receiving
MAY be silently ignored or
in the user's mailbox
special inter- pretation.
MUST not cause any error
to be sent to the sender of
MDN
If an UA developer does not
to register the meanings of
disposition modifier extensions
"X-" modifiers may be used
this purpose. To avoid
collisions, the name of the
implementation should follow
"X-", (e.g. "X-Foomail-fratzed").
It is not required that a UA be able to generate all of the
values of the Disposition field
One and only one MDN may be issued on behalf of each
recipient by their user agent. That is, once an MDN has been
on behalf of a recipient, no further MDNs may be issued on behalf
that recipient, even if another disposition is performed on
message. However, if a message is forwarded, a "dispatched" MDN
Fajman Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
been issued for the recipient doing the forwarding and the
of the forwarded message may also cause an MDN to be generated
3.2.7 Failure, Error and Warning
The Failure, Error and Warning fields are used to supply
information in the form of text messages when the "failure
disposition type, "error" disposition modifier, and/or the "warning
disposition modifer appear. The syntax
failure-field = "Failure" ":" *
error-field = "Error" ":" *
warning-field = "Warning" ":" *
3.3 Extension
Additional MDN fields may be defined in the future by later
or extensions to this specification. Extension-field names
with "X-" will never be defined as standard fields; such names
reserved for experimental use. MDN field names NOT beginning
"X-" MUST be registered with the Internet Assigned Numbers
(IANA) and described in a standards-track RFC or an experimental
approved by the IESG. See Section 10 for a registration form
Extension MDN fields may be defined for the following reasons
(a) To allow additional information from foreign
reports to be tunneled through Internet MDNs. The names of
MDN fields should begin with an indication of the
environment name (e.g. X400-Physical-Forwarding-Address).
(b) To allow transmission of diagnostic information which
specific to a particular user agent (UA). The names of such
fields should begin with an indication of the UA
which produced the MDN. (e.g. Foomail-information).
If an application developer does not wish to register the meanings
such extension fields, "X-" fields may be used for this purpose.
avoid name collisions, the name of the application
should follow the "X-", (e.g. "X-Foomail-Log-ID" or "X-EDI-info").
4. Timeline of
The following timeline shows when various events in the processing
a message and generation of MDNs take place
Fajman Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
-- User composes
-- User tells UA to send
-- UA passes message to MTA (original recipient
passed along
-- MTA sends message to next
-- Final MTA receives
-- Final MTA delivers message to UA (possibily generating DSN
-- UA performs automatic processing and generates
MDNs ("dispatched", "processed", "deleted", "denied" or "failed
disposition type with "automatic-action" and "MDN-sent
automatically" disposition modes
-- UA displays list of messages to
-- User selects a message and requests that some action
performed on it
-- UA performs requested action and, with user's permission
sends appropriate MDN ("displayed", "dispatched", "processed",
"deleted", "denied" or "failed" disposition type with "manual
action" and "MDN-sent-manually" or "MDN-sent-automatically
disposition mode).
-- User possibly performs other actions on message, but
further MDNs are generated
5. Conformance and Usage
A UA or gateway conforms to this specification if it generates
according to the protocol defined in this memo. It is not
to be able to generate all of the possible values of the
field
UAs and gateways MUST NOT generate the Original-Recipient field of
MDN unless the mail protocols provide the address
specified by the sender at the time of submission. Ordinary
does not make that guarantee, but the SMTP extension defined in
1891 [8] permits such information to be carried in the envelope if
is available. The Original-Recipient header defined in this
provides a way for the MTA to pass the original recipient address
the UA
Fajman Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
Each sender-specified recipient address may result in more than
MDN. If an MDN is requested for a recipient that is forwarded
multiple recipients of an "alias" (as defined in RFC 1891 [8],
section 6.2.7.3), each of the recipients may issue an MDN
Successful distribution of a message to a mailing list
SHOULD be considered final disposition of the message. A
list exploder may issue an MDN with a disposition type of "processed
and disposition modes of "automatic-action" and "MDN- sent
automatically" indicating that the message has been forwarded to
list. In this case, the request for MDNs is not propogated to
members of the list
Alternaively, the mailing list exploder may issue no MDN
propogate the request for MDNs to all members of the list.
latter behavior is not recommended for any but small, closely
lists, as it might cause large numbers of MDNs to be generated
may cause confidential subscribers to the list to be revealed. It
also permissible for the mailing list exploder to direct MDNs
itself, correlate them, and produce a report to the original
of the message
This specification places no restrictions on the processing of
received by user agents or mailing lists
6. Security
The following security considerations apply when using MDNs
6.1
MDNs may be forged as easily as ordinary Internet electronic mail
User agents and automatic mail handling facilities (such as
distribution list exploders) that wish to make automatic use of
should take appropriate precautions to minimize the potential
from denial-of-service attacks
Security threats related to forged MDNs include the sending of
(a) A falsified disposition notification when the
disposition of the message has not actually ocurred
(b) Unsolicited
6.2
Another dimension of security is confidentiality. There may be
in which a message recipient does not wish the disposition
Fajman Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
messages addressed to him to be known or is concerned that
sending of MDNs may reveal other confidential information (e.g.,
the message was read). In this situation, it is acceptable for
UA to issue "denied" MDNs or to silently ignore requests for MDNs
If the Disposition-Notification-To header is passed on
when a message is distributed to the subscribers of a mailing list
the subscribers to the list may be revealed to the sender of
original message by the generation of MDNs
Headers of the original message returned in part 3 of
multipart/report could reveal confidential information about
names and/or network topology inside a firewall
An unencrypted MDN could reveal confidential information about
encrypted message, especially if all or part of the original
is returned in part 3 of the multipart/report. Encrypted MDNs
not defined in this specification
In general, any optional MDN field may be omitted if the Reporting
site or user determines that inclusion of the field would impose
great a compromise of site confidentiality. The need for
confidentiality must be balanced against the utility of the
information in MDNs
6.3 Non-
Within the framework of today's Internet Mail, the MDNs defined
this document provide valuable information to the mail user; however
MDNs can not be relied upon as a guarantee that a message was or
not not seen by the recipient. Even if MDNs are not actively forged
they may be lost in transit. The MDN issuing mechanism may
bypassed in some manner by the recipient
7. Collected
NOTE: The following lexical tokens are defined in RFC 822: atom
CRLF, mailbox, msg-id, text. The definitions of attribute and
are as in the definition of the Content-Type header in RFC 2045 [4].
Message headers
mdn-request-header = "Disposition-Notification-To" ":" 1#
Disposition-Notification-Options =
"Disposition-Notification-Options" ":"
disposition-notification-
Fajman Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
disposition-notification-parameters = parameter *(";" parameter
parameter = attribute "=" importance "," 1#
importance = "required" / "optional
original-recipient-header =
"Original-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-
Report content
disposition-notification-content = [ reporting-ua-field CRLF ]
[ mdn-gateway-field CRLF ]
[ original-recipient-field CRLF ]
final-recipient-field
[ original-message-id-field CRLF ]
disposition-field
*( failure-field CRLF )
*( error-field CRLF )
*( warning-field CRLF )
*( extension-field CRLF )
address-type =
mta-name-type =
reporting-ua-field = "Reporting-UA" ":" ua-
[ ";" ua-product ]
ua-name = *
ua-product = *
mdn-gateway-field = "MDN-Gateway" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-
mta-name = *
original-recipient-field =
"Original-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-
generic-address = *
final-recipient-field =
"Final-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-
disposition-field = "Disposition" ":" disposition-mode ";"
disposition-
Fajman Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
[ '/' disposition-
*( "," dispostion-modifier ) ]
disposition-mode = action-mode "/" sending-
action-mode = "manual-action" / "automatic-action
sending-mode = "MDN-sent-manually" / "MDN-sent-automatically
disposition-type = "displayed
/ "dispatched
/ "processed
/ "deleted
/ "denied
/ "failed
disposition-modifier = ( "error" / "warning" )
/ ( "superseded" / "expired" /
"mailbox-terminated" )
/ disposition-modifier-
disposition-modifier-extension =
original-message-id-field = "Original-Message-ID" ":" msg-
failure-field = "Failure" ":" *
error-field = "Error" ":" *
warning-field = "Warning" ":" *
extension-field = extension-field-name ":" *
extension-field-name =
8. Guidelines for Gatewaying
NOTE: This section provides non-binding recommendations for
construction of mail gateways that wish to provide semi-
disposition notifications between the Internet and another
mail system. Specific MDN gateway requirements for a particular
of mail systems may be defined by other documents
8.1 Gatewaying from other mail systems to
A mail gateway may issue an MDN to convey the contents of a "foreign
disposition notification over Internet Mail. When there
appropriate mappings from the foreign notification elements to
Fajman Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
fields, the information may be transmitted in those MDN fields
Additional information (such as might be needed to tunnel the
notification through the Internet) may be defined in extension
fields. (Such fields should be given names that identify the
mail protocol, e.g. X400-* for X.400 protocol elements
The gateway must attempt to supply reasonable values for
Reporting-UA, Final-Recipient, and Disposition fields. These
normally be obtained by translating the values from the
notification into their Internet-style equivalents. However,
loss of information is to be expected
The sender-specified recipient address, and the original message-id
if present in the foreign notification, should be preserved in
Original-Recipient and Original-Message-ID fields
The gateway should also attempt to preserve the "final"
address from the foreign system. Whenever possible, foreign
elements should be encoded as meaningful printable ASCII strings
For MDNs produced from foreign disposition notifications, the name
the gateway MUST appear in the MDN-Gateway field of the MDN
8.2 Gatewaying from MDNs to other mail
It may be possible to gateway MDNs from the Internet into a
mail system. The primary purpose of such gatewaying is to
disposition information in a form that is usable by the
system. A secondary purpose is to allow "tunneling" of MDNs
foreign mail systems, in case the MDN may be gatewayed back into
Internet
In general, the recipient of the MDN (i.e., the sender of
original message) will want to know, for each recipient: the
available approximation to the original recipient address, and
disposition (displayed, printed, etc.).
If possible, the gateway should attempt to preserve the Original
Recipient address and Original-Message-ID (if present), in
resulting foreign disposition report
If it is possible to tunnel an MDN through the
environment, the gateway specification may define a means
preserving the MDN information in the disposition reports used
that environment
Fajman Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
9.
NOTE: This example is provided as illustration only, and is
considered part of the MDN protocol specification. If the
conflicts with the protocol definition above, the example is wrong
Likewise, the use of *-type subfield names or extension fields
this example is not to be construed as a definition for those
names or extension fields
9.1 This is an MDN issued after a message has been displayed to the
of an Internet Mail user agent
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 00:19:00 (EDT) -0400
From: Joe Recipient Recipient@mega.edu
Message-Id: <199509200019.12345@mega.edu
Subject: Disposition
To: Jane Sender
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=disposition-notification
boundary="RAA14128.773615765/mega.edu
--RAA14128.773615765/mega.
The message sent on 1995 Sep 19 at 13:30:00 (EDT) -0400 to
Recipient Recipient@mega.edu> with subject "First draft
report" has been displayed. This is no guarantee that the
has been read or understood
--RAA14128.773615765/mega.
content-type: message/disposition-
Reporting-UA: joes-pc.cs.mega.edu; Foomail 97.1
Original-Recipient: rfc822;Joe_Recipient@mega.
Final-Recipient: rfc822;Joe_Recipient@mega.
Original-Message-ID: <199509192301.23456@huge.com
Disposition: manual-action/MDN-sent-manually;
--RAA14128.773615765/mega.
content-type: message/rfc822
[original message goes here
--RAA14128.773615765/mega.edu--
Fajman Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
10. IANA Registration
The forms below are for use when registering a new parameter name
the Disposition-Notification-Options header, a new
modifier name, or a new MDN extension field. Each piece
information required by a registration form may be satisfied
by providing the information on the form itself, or by including
reference to a published, publicly available specification
includes the necessary information. IANA MAY reject
because of incomplete registration forms, imprecise specifications
or inappropriate names
To register, complete the applicable form below and send it
electronic mail to .
10.1 IANA registration form for Disposition-Notification-Options
parameter
A registration for a Disposition-Notification-Options
parameter name MUST include the following information
(a) The proposed parameter name
(b) The syntax for parameter values, specified using BNF, ABNF
regular expressions, or other non-ambiguous language
(c) If parameter values are not composed entirely of
characters from the US-ASCII repertoire, a specification for how
are to be encoded as graphic US-ASCII characters in a Disposition
Notification-Options header
(d) A reference to a standards track RFC or experimental RFC
by the IESG that describes the semantics of the parameter values
10.2 IANA registration form for disposition modifer
A registration for a disposition-modifier name MUST include
following information
(a) The proposed disposition-modifier name
(b) A reference to a standards track RFC or experimental RFC
by the IESG that describes the semantics of the disposition modifier
10.3 IANA registration form for MDN extension field
A registration for an MDN extension field name MUST include
following information
Fajman Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
(a) The proposed extension field name
(b) The syntax for extension values, specified using BNF, ABNF
regular expressions, or other non-ambiguous language
(c) If extension field values are not composed entirely of
characters from the US-ASCII repertoire, a specification for how
are to be encoded as graphic US-ASCII characters in a Disposition
Notification-Options header
(d) A reference to a standards track RFC or experimental RFC
by the IESG that describes the semantics of the extension field
11.
This document is based on the Delivery Status Notifications document
RFC 1894 [9], by Keith Moore and Greg Vaudreuil. Contributions
made by members of the IETF Receipt Working Group, including
Alverstrand, Ian Bell, Urs Eppenberger, Claus Andri Faerber,
Freed, Jim Galvin, Carl Hage, Mike Lake, Keith Moore, Paul Overell
Pete Resnick, Chuck Shih
12.
[1] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821,
August 1982.
[2] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet
Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.
[3] Braden, R. (ed.), "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.
[4] Freed, N., and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[5] Freed, N., and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
1996.
[6] Moore, K., "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME)
Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-Ascii Text",
2047, November 1996.
[7] Vaudreuil, G., "The Multipart/Report Content Type for
Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages", RFC 1892,
January 1996.
Fajman Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
[8] Moore, K., "SMTP Service Extension for Delivery
Notifications", RFC 1891, January 1996.
[9] Moore, K., and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Format
Delivery Status Notifications, RFC 1894, January 1996.
[10] Bradner, S., "Key Words for Use in RFCs to
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
13. Author's
Roger
National Institutes of
Building 12A, Room 3063
12 South Drive MSC 5659
Bethesda, Maryland 20892-5659
EMail: raf@cu.nih.
Phone: +1 301 402 4265
Fax: +1 301 480 6241
Fajman Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 2298 Message Disposition Notifications March 1998
14. Full Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied,
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
included on all such copies and derivative works. However,
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other
English
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns
This document and the information contained herein is provided on
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
Fajman Standards Track [Page 28]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
