RFC 2442







Network Working Group                                         N. Freed
Request for Comments: 2442                                   D. Newman
Category: Informational                                       Innosoft
                                                          J. Belissent
                                                      Sun Microsystems
                                                                M. Hoy
                                                             Mainbrace
                                                         November 1998


                                  The
                               Batch SMTP
                               Media Type

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document defines a MIME content type suitable for tunneling an
   ESMTP [RFC 821, RFC 1869] transaction through any MIME-capable
   transport.  This type can be used for a variety of purposes,
   including:  Extending end-to-end MIME-based security services (e.g.,
   [RFC 1847]) to cover message envelope information as well as message
   content.  Making it possible to use specific SMTP extensions such as
   NOTARY [RFC 1891] over unextended SMTP transport infrastructure.
   Enabling the transfer of multiple separate messages in a single
   transactional unit.

Requirements Notation

   This document occasionally uses terms that appear in capital letters.
   When the terms "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY"
   appear capitalized, they are being used to indicate particular
   requirements of this specification. A discussion of the meanings of
   the terms "MUST", "SHOULD", and "MAY" appears in [RFC 1123]; the
   terms "MUST NOT" and "SHOULD NOT" are logical extensions of this
   usage.






Freed, et. al.               Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 2442 Batch SMTP Media Type November 1998 The Application/batch-SMTP Content Type The "application/batch-SMTP" MIME content type is a container for the client side of an SMTP or ESMTP transaction. In keeping with traditional SMTP, the contents are line oriented and CRLF line terminators MUST be used. The "application/batch-SMTP" type is defined as follows: Media type name: application Media subtype name: batch-SMTP Required parameters: none Optional parameters: required-extensions Encoding considerations: 8bit material may appear, so quoted-printable or base64 encoding may be necessary on transports that do not support 8bit. While the content of this type is line-oriented and uses conventional CR/LF terminators, lines longer than 7bit and 8bit encodings allow (998 octets) may appear, hence quoted-printable or base64 encoding may be necessary even in conjunction with 8bit transports. Security considerations: Discussed in the Security Considerations Section. How application/batch-SMTP is used The following diagram illustrates how the application/batch-SMTP type is intended to be used: application/batch-SMTP object +----------------+ | | +-----------+ v +----------+ v +-----------+ | batch | | MIME- | | batch | => | SMTP | => | capable | => | SMTP | => | generator | |transport | | processor | ^ +-----------+ +----------+ +-----------+ ^ | | +-- conventional SMTP/RFC822 message transaction --+ A conventional SMTP message transaction is converted into an application/batch-SMTP object by the batch SMTP generator. This object is then carried over some type of MIME-capable transport. Once the destination is reached the object is presented to a batch SMTP processor, which converts the application/batch-SMTP object back into a conventional SMTP message transaction. Freed, et. al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 2442 Batch SMTP Media Type November 1998 Generation of application/batch-SMTP material Application/batch-SMTP material is generated by a specially modified SMTP client operating without a corresponding SMTP server. The client simply assumes a successful response to all commands it issues. The resulting content then consists of the collected output from the SMTP client. Honoring SMTP restrictions Most batch SMTP processors will be constructed by modifying and extending existing SMTP servers. As such, all of the restrictions on SMTP constructs imposed by RFC 821, RFC 1123, and RFC 1869 MUST be observed. In particular, restrictions on command and data line lengths, number of recipients, and so on still exist and apply to batch SMTP. Use of SMTP Extensions Since no SMTP server is present the client must be prepared to make certain assumptions about which SMTP extensions can be used. The generator MAY assume that ESMTP [RFC 1869] facilities are available, that is, it is acceptable to use the EHLO command and additional parameters on MAIL FROM and RCPT TO. If EHLO is used MAY assume that the 8bitMIME [RFC 1652], SIZE [RFC 1870], and NOTARY [RFC 1891] extensions are available. In particular, NOTARY SHOULD be used. MAY create private bilateral agreements which specify the availability of additional SMTP extensions. Additional SMTP extensions MUST NOT be used in the absence of such an agreement, and, perhaps more importantly, a conformant generation of application/batch-SMTP objects MUST be able to produce objects restricted to use of the extensions listed above. The "required-extensions" content type parameter MAY be used to communicate a list of the extensions actually used, specified as a comma-separated list of EHLO responses. If absent it defaults to the list "8bitMIME,SIZE,NOTARY". Any use by private bilateral agreement of additional or different extensions MUST be noted in the "required-extensions" parameter. Note that many SMTP extensions simply do not make sense in the context of batch SMTP. For example, the pipelining extension [RFC- 2197] makes no sense in the absence of a network connection. Freed, et. al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 2442 Batch SMTP Media Type November 1998 Handling Multiple Messages Generators SHOULD attempt to minimize the number of messages placed in a single application/batch-SMTP object. Ideally a single application/batch-SMTP object will be created for each message. Note, however, that some uses of application/batch-SMTP (e.g., mail bagging) may exist solely to take advantage of the multiple messages in a single container capability of batch SMTP, so requiring one message per container is not possible. DISCUSSION: The SMTP protocol provides for the transfer of a series of messages over a single connection. This extends in a natural way to batch SMTP. However, the issues in batch SMTP are somewhat different. Suppose, for example, that a batch SMTP processor receives an application/batch-SMTP object containing two messages but is unable to process the second message because of a storage allocation failure. But suppose that not only does this failure preclude processing of the second message, it also precludes recording that the first message has already been processed. Subsequent reprocessing of the application/batch-SMTP could then lead to duplication of the first message. This issue is not materially different from the well-known problems with SMTP synchronization that in practice often lead to duplicated messages. Since this behavior is inherent in SMTP to begin with it is not incumbent on application/batch-SMTP to completely address the issue. Nevertheless, it seems prudent for application/batch-SMTP to try and not make matters even worse. Transport of application/batch-SMTP objects Application/batch-SMTP objects may be transported by any transport capable of preserving their MIME labelling, e.g., HTTP or SMTP. Transports MUST remain cognizant of the special nature of application/batch-SMTP. An application/batch-SMTP object contains one or more "frozen" SMTP message transactions. SMTP message transactions typically carry with them various assumptions about quality of service, e.g., that messages will either be delivered successfully or a nondelivery notification will be returned, that a nondelivery notification will be returned if delivery cannot be accomplished in a timely fashion, and so on. It is vital that the encapsulation of these objects for carriage over other forms of transport not interfere with these capabilities. Freed, et. al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 2442 Batch SMTP Media Type November 1998 Processing of application/batch-SMTP material Processing of application/batch-SMTP material is considerably more complex than generating it. As might be expected, a modified SMTP/ESMTP processor is used. However, since it cannot return information to the client, it must handle all error conditions that arise itself. In other words, a batch SMTP processor assumes both the responsibilities of a traditional SMTP server as well as part of the responsibilities of a traditional SMTP client. As such, a conforming processor: MUST check MIME content type information to insure that the material it has been presented with is labelled as application/batch-SMTP and doesn't specify any extensions the processor doesn't support in the "required-extensions" parameter. Application/batch-SMTP objects that employ an unsupported extension SHOULD be forwarded to the local postmaster for manual inspection and handling. MUST accept any syntactically valid EHLO or HELO command. MUST accept any syntactically valid MAIL FROM command. A conforming processor, MAY, if it so desires, note the unacceptability of some part of a given MAIL FROM command and use this information to subsequently generate non-delivery notifications for any or all recipients. MUST accept any syntactically valid RCPT TO command. A conforming processor SHOULD note the unacceptability of some part of a given RCPT TO command and subsequently use this information to generate a non-delivery notification for this recipient in lieu of actually delivering the message. MUST accept any of the additional parameters defined by the 8bitMIME, SIZE, and NOTARY SMTP extensions on the MAIL FROM and RCPT TO commands. MUST accept the DATA command even when no valid recipients are present. 8bit MIME messages MUST be accepted. MUST accept the RSET command and handle multiple messages in a single application/batch-SMTP object. Processors MUST process each message in an application/batch-SMTP object once and SHOULD take whatever steps are necessary to avoid processing a message more than once. For example, if processing of an application/batch-SMTP object containing multiple messages is interrupted at an intermediate point it should subsequently be restarted at the end of the last message that was completely processed. SHOULD forward any syntactically invalid application/batch-SMTP message to the local postmaster for manual inspection and handling. Security Considerations Application/batch-SMTP implements a tunneling mechanism. In general tunneling mechanisms are prone to abuse because they may provide a means of bypassing existing security restrictions. For example, an application/batch-SMTP tunnel implemented over an existing SMTP transport may allow someone to bypass relay restrictions imposed to block redistribution of spam. Freed, et. al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 2442 Batch SMTP Media Type November 1998 Application/batch-SMTP processors SHOULD implement access restrictions designed to limit access to the processor to authorized generators only. (Note that this facility may be provided automatically if application/batch-SMTP is being used to secure message envelope information.) Acknowledgements The general concept of batch SMTP has been around for a long time. One particular type of batch SMTP was defined by Alan Crosswell and used on BITNET to overcome BITNET's native 8 character limit on user and host names. However, this form of batch SMTP differed from the current proposal in that it envisioned having the server return the status code responses to the client. In this case the client bore the burden of correlating responses with the original SMTP dialogue after the fact. Unfortunately this approach proved not to work well in practice. BITNET eventually switched to the same basic form of batch SMTP that has been defined here. Unfortunately that definition was, to the best of the present authors' knowledge, never captured in a formal specification. It should also be noted that the definition given here also differs in that it takes SMTP extensions into account. Einar Stefferud had previously considered the problem of carrying extended SMTP messages over unextended SMTP transports. He proposed that some form of "double enveloping" technology be developed to address this problem. The mechanism presented here effectively implements the type of solution he proposed. References [RFC 821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821, August 1982. [RFC 822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", STD 11, RFC 822 August 1982. [RFC 1123] Braden, B., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989. [RFC 1652] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E. and D. Crocker, "SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport", RFC 1652, July 1994. [RFC 1847] Galvin, J., Murphy, S., Crocker, S. and N. Freed, "Security Multiparts for MIME: Multipart/Signed and Multipart/Encrypted", RFC 1847, October 1995. Freed, et. al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 2442 Batch SMTP Media Type November 1998 [RFC 1869] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E. and D. Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", STD 10, RFC 1869, November 1995. [RFC 1870] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Moore, K., "SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration", STD 10, RFC 1870, November, 1995 [RFC 2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045, December 1996. [RFC 2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, December 1996. [RFC 2197] Freed, N. and A. Cargille, "SMTP Service Extension for Command Pipelining", RFC 2197, September 1997. Authors' Addresses Ned Freed Innosoft International, Inc. 1050 Lakes Drive West Covina, CA 91790 USA Phone: +1 626 919 3600 Fax: +1 626 919 3614 EMail: ned.freed@innosoft.com Dan Newman Innosoft International, Inc. 1050 Lakes Drive West Covina, CA 91790 USA Phone: +1 626 919 3600 Fax: +1 626 919 3614 EMail: dan.newman@innosoft.com Freed, et. al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 2442 Batch SMTP Media Type November 1998 Mark Hoy Mainbrace Corporation 1136 West Evelyn Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94086 tel: +1 408 774 5265 fax: +1 408 774 5290 email: mark.hoy@mainbrace.com Jacques Bellisent SunSoft Phone: +1 650 786 3630 EMail: jacques.belissent@eng.sun.com Freed, et. al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 2442 Batch SMTP Media Type November 1998 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Freed, et. al. Informational [Page 9]

Back to RFC index