MAIL TRANSFER PROTOCOL



                           Suzanne Sluizer

                                 and

                          Jonathan B. Postel









                               RFC 780











                               May 1981



                    Information Sciences Institute
                  University of Southern California
                          4676 Admiralty Way
                  Marina del Rey, California  90291

                            (213) 822-1511




May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



                          TABLE OF CONTENTS

  1.  INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1

  2.  THE MTP MODEL ................................................. 2

  3.  BASIC MAIL .................................................... 4

     3.1.  Forwarding ............................................... 5
     3.2.  Source Routing ........................................... 6

  4.  MULTI-RECIPIENT MAIL .......................................... 8

     4.1.  Scheme Selection: MRSQ ................................... 8
     4.2.  Message Text Specification: MAIL ......................... 9
     4.3.  Recipient Specification: MRCP ........................... 10
     4.4.  Scheme Mechanics: Recipients First ...................... 10
     4.5.  Scheme Mechanics: Text First ............................ 12
     4.6.  Discussion .............................................. 12

  5.  SPECIFICATIONS ............................................... 16

     5.1.  MTP Commands ............................................ 16
     5.1.1.  Command Semantics ..................................... 16
     5.1.2.  Command Syntax ........................................ 18
     5.2.  MTP Replies ............................................. 22
     5.2.1.  Reply Codes by Function Group ......................... 23
     5.2.2.  Reply Codes in Numeric Order .......................... 24
     5.3.  Sequencing of Commands and Replies ...................... 25
     5.4.  State Diagrams .......................................... 28
     5.5.  Details ................................................. 30
     5.5.1.  Minimum Implementation ................................ 30
     5.5.2.  Transparency .......................................... 30
     5.5.3.  Sizes ................................................. 30

  APPENDIX A:  TCP ................................................. 32
  APPENDIX B:  NCP ................................................. 33
  APPENDIX C:  NITS ................................................ 34
  APPENDIX D:  X.25 ................................................ 35
  APPENDIX E:  Theory of Reply Codes ............................... 36

  GLOSSARY ......................................................... 39

  REFERENCES ....................................................... 42






Network Working Group                                         S. Sluizer
Request for Comments: 780                                      J. Postel
                                                                    ISI
Replaces: RFC 772                                               May 1981

                        MAIL TRANSFER PROTOCOL


1.  INTRODUCTION

  The objective of Mail Transfer Protocol (MTP) is to transfer mail
  reliably and efficiently.

  MTP is designed to be independent of the particular transmission
  subsystem and requires only a reliable ordered data stream channel.
  Appendices describe the use of MTP with various transport services.
  A Glossary provides the definitions of terms as used in this
  document.

  An important feature of MTP is its capability to relay mail from one
  transport environment to another.  A transport service provides an
  interprocess communication environment (IPCE).  An IPCE may cover one
  network, several networks, or a subset of a network.  A process can
  communicate directly with another process anywhere in its own IPCE.
  Mail is a special case of interprocess communication.  Mail can be
  communicated between proceses in different IPCEs by relaying through
  a process connected to two (or more) IPCEs.  More specifically, mail
  can be relayed between hosts on different transport systems by a host
  on both transport systems.  It is important to realize that transport
  systems (or IPCEs) are not one-to-one with networks.
























Sluizer & Postel                                                [Page 1]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



2.  THE MTP MODEL

  The MTP design is based on the following model of communication:  at
  the initiation of the user, the sender-MTP establishes the
  full-duplex transmission channel.  MTP commands are generated by the
  sender-MTP and sent to the receiver-MTP.  MTP replies are sent from
  the receiver-MTP to the sender-MTP in response to the commands.

  In the simplest case, once the transmission channel is established
  the MTP-sender sends a MAIL command indicating the sender and
  receiver of the mail.  If the MTP-receiver can accept the mail it
  responds with a go ahead reply.  Then the MTP-sender sends the mail
  data, terminating with a special sequence.  If the MTP-receiver
  successfully processes the mail it responds with an OK reply.

    -------------------------------------------------------------


              +----------+                +----------+
  +------+    |          |                |          |
  | User |<-->|          |      MTP       |          |
  +------+    |  Sender- |Commands/Replies| Receiver-|
  +------+    |   MTP    |<-------------->|    MTP   |    +------+
  | File |<-->|          |    and Mail    |          |<-->| File |
  |System|    |          |                |          |    |System|
  +------+    +----------+                +----------+    +------+


               Sender-MTP                 Receiver-MTP

                          Model for MTP Use

                               Figure 1

    -------------------------------------------------------------

  The MTP provides mechanisms for the transmission of mail; directly
  from the sending user's host to the receiving user's host when the
  two host are connected to the same transport service, or via one or
  more relay MTP-servers when the source and destination hosts are not
  connected to the same transport service.

  To be able to provide the relay capability the MTP-server must be
  supplied with the name of the ultimate destination host as well as
  the destination mailbox name.




[Page 2]                                                Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



  The arguments to the MAIL command are a FROM path and a TO path.  The
  TO path is a source route while the FROM path is a return route
  (which may be used to return a message to the sender when an error
  occurs with a relayed message).

  The preceding discussion has outlined the transmission of one copy of
  one message from a source to a destination host and the possibility
  of relaying messages between different transport services.  The MTP
  additionally supports the transmission of one copy of a message
  addressed to multiple recipients.

  In order for mail to be successfully transmitted the destination
  users must be known at the destination receiver-MTP and the mail data
  must be correctly received and stored.  In the single recipient case
  discussed above the positive response to the MAIL command indicated
  the recipient was known, and the final OK response indicated the mail
  was received and stored.

  To support multi-recipient mail, MTP provides two procedures:
  Text-First, and Recipients-First.  In the text-first scheme the mail
  data is sent and acknowledged, then each recipient identification is
  sent and acknowledged (or refused) separately.  In the
  recipients-first scheme the recipients are negotiated first, then the
  text is sent and acknowledged (for all recipients at once).  The
  choice of scheme is up to the MTP-receiver, and depends on the way
  mail is handled in the destination host.

  The multi-recipient mail procedures are optional and the
  determination of which scheme to use is negotiated.  The use of the
  multi-recipient schemes is strongly encouraged by the economy they
  provide in transmission and processing.

  The mail commands and replies have a rigid syntax.  Replies also have
  a numeric code.  In the following, examples appear which use actual
  commands and replies.  The complete lists of commands and replies
  appears in Section 5 on specifications.

  Commands and replies are not case sensitive.  That is, a command or
  reply word may be upper case, lower case, or any mixture of upper and
  lower case.  Note that this is not true of mailbox user names.  For
  some hosts the user name is case sensitive, and MTP implementations
  must take case to preserve the case of user names as they appear in
  mailbox arguments.






Sluizer & Postel                                                [Page 3]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



3.  BASIC MAIL

  The basic command for transmitting mail is MAIL.  This command causes
  the transmitted data to be entered into the recipient's mailbox, or
  accepted for relaying to the destination host.

  The mail text is also sent on the transmission channel.  This
  requires  that the end of the text be signalled so that the command
  and reply dialog can be resumed.  MTP signals the end of the mail
  text by sending a line containing only a period.  A transparency
  procedure is used to prevent this interfering with the users text
  (see Section 5.5.2).

     MAIL <SP> FROM:<sender-path> <SP> TO:<receiver-path> <CRLF>

        The <sender-path> contains the source mailbox; the
        <receiver-path> contains the destination mailbox.  If accepted,
        the receiver-MTP returns a 354 reply and considers all
        succeeding lines to be the message text.  The message text is
        terminated by a line containing only a period, upon which a 250
        completion reply is returned.  Various errors are possible.

        Actually the <sender-path> and <receiver-path> are more than
        just the mailboxes, they may be source routes.  The
        <receiver-path> is a source routing list of hosts and
        destination mailbox; the <sender-path> is a reverse source
        routing list of hosts and source mailbox.






















[Page 4]                                                Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



    -------------------------------------------------------------

                     Example of MAIL (Basic Mail)

     This MAIL command specifies the mail is sent by Waldo at host A,
     and is to be delivered to Foo at host Y.  Here we assume that host
     A contacts host Y directly.

        S: MAIL FROM:<waldo@A> TO:<Foo@Y> <CRLF>
        R: 354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>
        S: Blah blah blah blah....etc. etc. etc.
        S: <CRLF>.<CRLF>
        R: 250 Mail sent

     The mail text has now been sent to "Foo".

                              Example 1

    -------------------------------------------------------------

  3.1.  FORWARDING

     There are two possible preliminary replies that a receiver may use
     to indicate that it is accepting mail for a user whose mailbox is
     not at that host.

        151 User not local; will forward to <user>@<host>

           This reply indicates that the receiver-MTP knows the user's
           mailbox is on another host and will take responsibility for
           forwarding the mail to that host.  This reply is only sent
           when the sender would not expect the mail to be forwarded.
           That is, when <receiver-path> as given in the command
           indicates mail relaying, this reply will not be used.  This
           reply could be used for an organization with several hosts
           when each has a list of many of the users on the hosts.  A
           host can accept mail for any user on its list and forward it
           to the correct host.

        152 User Unknown; mail will be forwarded by the operator

           This reply indicates that the host does not recognize the
           user name, but that it will accept the mail and have the
           operator attempt to deliver it.  This is useful if the user
           name is misspelled, but may be a disservice if the mail is
           really undeliverable.



Sluizer & Postel                                                [Page 5]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



     If forwarding by the operator is unacceptable or if the
     sending-user would prefer to send the mail directly to the
     recipient's actual host, the action may be aborted.

     The MTP-sender must accept or reject the proposal in the
     preliminary reply by sending a continue (CONT) or abort (ABRT)
     command.  In the case of the continue, the next reply from the
     MTP-receiver will be any of the replies expected for the MAIL
     command, most likely "354 Start mail input, ...".  In the case of
     the abort, the next reply from the MTP-receiver will be "201
     Command okay, action aborted".

  3.2.  SOURCE ROUTING

     The receiver-path may be a source route of the form
     "@ONE,@TWO,JOE@THREE", where ONE, TWO, and THREE are hosts.  This
     form is used to emphasize the distinction between an address and a
     route.

     At some distant future time it might be necessary to expand the
     mailbox format to include a region identifier, such as
     "user@host@region".  If this occured the MTP  path convention
     could be expanded to
     "host@region,host@region,...user@host@region". For example,
     "ONE@R1,TWO@R2,JOE@THREE@R3".

     The mailbox is an absolute address, and the route is information
     about how to get there.  The two concepts should not be confused.

     The elements of the receiver-path are to be moved to the
     sender-path as the message is relayed from one MTP to another. The
     sender-path is a reverse source route, that is, a source route to
     the originator of the message.  When an MTP deletes its identifier
     from the receiver-path and inserts it into the sender-path, it
     must use the name it is known by in the environment it is sending
     into, not the environment the mail came from, in case the MTP is
     known be different names in different environments.

     When source routing is used the receiver-MTP will receive mail to
     be relayed to another MTP.  The receiver-MTP may accept the task
     of relaying the mail or reject it in the same way it accepts or
     reject mail for a local user.  It does not use the 151 "User not
     local" or 152 "User unknown" preliminary replies.  Once the
     receiver-MTP accepts the relaying task it receives the mail text
     and transforms the command arguments by removing its own
     identifier from the receiver-path and inserting it in the



[Page 6]                                                Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



     beginning of the sender-path.  The receiver-MTP then becomes a
     sender-MTP and establishes a transmission channel to the next MTP
     in the receiver-path and sends it the mail.

     If an MTP has accepted the task of relaying the mail and later
     finds that the receiver-path is incorrect or that the mail cannot
     be delivered for whatever reason, then it must construct a
     notification message and send it to the originator of the
     undeliverable mail as indicated by the sender-path.  This
     notification message must be from the MTP at this host.  That is,
     the sender-path of the notification message itself will be
     "MTP@<host>", and in the notification message header the From
     field will be "MTP at <host>".  Of course, MTPs should not send
     notification messages about problems with notification messages.



































Sluizer & Postel                                                [Page 7]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



4.  MULTI-RECIPIENT MAIL

  There are two MTP commands which allow the text of a message to be
  mailed to several recipients simultaneously; such message
  transmission is far more efficient than the practice of sending the
  text again and again for each additional recipient at a host.  In one
  scheme, all recipients are specified first, and then the text is
  sent.  In the other scheme, the order is reversed and the text is
  sent first, followed by the recipients.  The sender-MTP suggests the
  scheme it would prefer, but receiver-MTP controls which scheme is
  actually used.  To select a particular scheme, the MRSQ command is
  used; to specify recipients after a scheme is chosen, MRCP commands
  are given; and to furnish text, the MAIL command is used.

  Both schemes are necessary because neither by itself is optimal for
  all systems.  MRSQ R allows more of a "bulk" mailing because
  everything is saved up and then mailed simultaneously.  This is very
  useful for systems such as ITS where the MTP-receiver does not itself
  write mail directly, but hands it on to a central mailer demon.  The
  more information (e.g., recipients) associated with a single
  "hand-off", the more efficiently mail can be delivered.

  By contrast, MRSQ T is geared to receiver-MTPs which want to deliver
  mail directly, in one-by-one incremental fashion.  For each given
  recipient this scheme returns an individual success/failure reply
  code which may depend on variable mail system factors such as
  exceeding disk allocation, mailbox access conflicts, and so forth.
  If these receiver-MTPs tried to emulate MRSQ Rs bulk mailing, they
  would have to ensure that a success reply to the MAIL indeed meant
  that it had been delivered to ALL recipients specified -- not just
  some.

  4.1.  SCHEME SELECTION:  MRSQ

     MRSQ is the means by which a sender-MTP can test for MRSQ/MRCP
     implementation, select a particular scheme, reset its state, and
     even do some rudimentary negotiation.  Its format is as follows:

        MRSQ [<SP> <scheme>] <CRLF>

        <scheme> is a single character.  The following are defined:
           R  Recipients first.  If this is not implemented, T must be.
           T  Text first.  If this is not implemented, R must be.
           ?  Request for preference.  This must always be implemented.





[Page 8]                                                Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



           No argument means a "selection" of none of the schemes (the
           default).

        Possible replies are:
           200 OK, use the specified scheme
           215 <scheme> This is the scheme I prefer
           504 I understand MRSQ but can't use that scheme
           5xx Command unrecognized or unimplemented

     There are three aspects of MRSQ.  The first is that an MRSQ with
     no argument must always return a 200 reply and restore the default
     state of having no scheme selected.  Any other reply implies that
     MRSQ and hence MRCP are not understood or cannot be performed
     correctly.

     The second is that the use of "?" as a <scheme> asks the MTP
     receiver to return a 215 reply in which the receiver specifies a
     "preferred" scheme.  The format of this reply is simple:

        215 <SP> <scheme> [<SP> <string>] <CRLF>

        Any other reply (e.g., 4xx or 5xx) implies that MRSQ and MRCP
        are not implemented, because "?" must always be implemented if
        MRSQ is.

     The third important point about MRSQ is that it always has the
     side effect of reseting all schemes to their initial state.  This
     reset must be done no matter what the reply will be -- 200, 215,
     or 504.  The actions necessary for a reset will be explained when
     discussing how each scheme actually works.

     Note that the receiver gets to choose which scheme is used.  The
     sender must be prepared to do either.

  4.2.  MESSAGE TEXT SPECIFICATION:  MAIL

     Regardless of which scheme (if any) has been selected, a MAIL
     command with a non-null receiver-path argument will behave exactly
     as before; the MRSQ/MRCP commands have no effect on it.  However,
     a normal MAIL command does have the same side effect as MRSQ; it
     "resets" all schemes to their initial state.

     It is only when the receiver-path argument is null that the
     particular scheme chosen is important.

        MAIL FROM:<sender-path> <CRLF>



Sluizer & Postel                                                [Page 9]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



     Rather than producing an error, the receiver will accept message
     text for this "null" recipient specification.  What it does with
     it depends on which scheme is in effect, and will be described in
     the section on Scheme Mechanics.

  4.3.  RECIPIENT SPECIFICATION:  MRCP

     In order to specify recipient names (i.e., mailboxes) and receive
     some acknowledgment (or refusal) for each name, the following
     command is used:

        MRCP <SP> TO:<receiver-path> <CRLF>

        Reply for no scheme:
           503 No scheme specified yet; use MRSQ
        Replies for scheme T are identical to those for MAIL.
        Replies for scheme R (recipients first):
           200 OK, name stored
           452 Recipient table full, this name not stored
           550 Recipient name rejected
           4xx Temporary error, try this name again later
           5xx Permanent error, report to sender

     Note that use of this command is an error if no scheme has been
     selected yet; an MRSQ <scheme> must have been given if MRCP is to
     be used.

  4.4.  SCHEME MECHANICS:  MRSQ R (RECIPIENTS-FIRST)

     In the recipients-first scheme, MRCP is used to specify names
     which the MTP receiver stores in a list or table.  Normally the
     reply for each MRCP will be either a 200 for acceptance or a
     4xx/5xx rejection code.  All 5xx codes are permanent rejections
     (e.g., user not known) which should be reported to the human user,
     whereas 4xx codes in general connote some temporary error that may
     be rectified later.  None of the 4xx/5xx replies impinge on
     previous or succeeding MRCP commands, except for 452 which
     indicates that no further MRCPs will succeed unless a message is
     sent to the already stored recipients or a reset is done.

     Sending message text to stored recipients is done by giving a MAIL
     command with no receiver-path argument; that is, just MAIL <SP>
     FROM: <sender-path> <CRLF>.  Transmission of the message text is
     exactly the same as for normal MAIL.  However, a positive
     acknowledgment at the end of transmission means the message has
     been sent to ALL recipients that were remembered with MRCP, and a



[Page 10]                                               Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



     failure code means that it should be considered to have failed for
     ALL of these specified recipients.  This applies regardless of the
     actual error code.  Regardless of what the reply signifies, all
     stored recipient names are flushed and forgotten -- in other
     words, things are reset to their initial state.  This purging of
     the recipient name list must also be done as the reset side effect
     of any use of MRSQ (or MAIL with a non-null receiver-path
     argument).

     A 452 reply (out of storage space) to an MRCP can be handled by
     using MAIL to specify the message for currently stored recipients,
     and then sending more MRCPs and another MAIL, as many times as
     necessary.  For example, if a receiver only had room for 10 names
     this would result in a 50-recipient message being sent 5 times, to
     10 different recipients each time.

     If a sender attempts to specify message text (MAIL with no
     receiver-path argument) before any successful MRCPs have been
     given, this should be treated exactly as a "normal" MAIL with a
     null recipient would be; some receivers return an error, such as
     "550 Null recipient".

     -------------------------------------------------------------

                 Example of MRSQ R (Recipients First)

        First the sender must establish that the receiver implements
        MRSQ.

           S: MRSQ <CRLF>
           R: 200 OK, no scheme selected

        An MRSQ with a null argument always returns a 200 if
        implemented, selecting the default "scheme", i.e., none of
        them.  If MRSQ were not implemented, a code of 4xx or 5xx would
        be returned.

           S: MRSQ R <CRLF>
           R: 200 OK, using that scheme

        All is well; now the recipients can be specified.

           S: MRCP TO:<Foo@Y> <CRLF>
           R: 200 OK





Sluizer & Postel                                               [Page 11]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



           S: MRCP TO:<Raboof@Y> <CRLF>
           R: 550 No such user here

           S: MRCP TO:<bar@Y> <CRLF>
           R: 200 OK

           S: MRCP TO:<@Y,@X,fubar@Z> <CRLF>
           R: 200 OK

        Note that the failure of "Raboof" has no effect on the storage
        of mail for "Foo", "bar" or the mail to be relayed to "fubar@Z"
        through host "X".  Now the message text is furnished, by giving
        a MAIL command with no receiver-path argument.

           S: MAIL FROM:<waldo@A><CRLF>
           R: 354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>
           S: Blah blah blah blah....etc. etc. etc.
           S: <CRLF>.<CRLF>
           R: 250 Mail sent

        The mail text has now been sent to "Foo" and "bar" as well as
        relayed to "fubar@Z".

                              Example 2

     -------------------------------------------------------------

  4.5.  SCHEME MECHANICS:  MRSQ T (TEXT-FIRST)

     In the text-first scheme, MAIL with no receiver-path argument is
     used to specify message text, which the receiver stores away.
     Succeeding MRCPs are then treated as if they were MAIL commands,
     except that none of the text transfer manipulations are done; the
     stored message text is sent to the specified recipient, and a
     reply code is returned identical to that which an actual MAIL
     would invoke. (Note that any 2xx code indicates success.)

     The stored message text is not forgotten until the next MAIL or
     MRSQ, which will either replace it with new text or flush it
     entirely.  Any use of MRSQ will reset this scheme by flushing
     stored text, as will any use of MAIL with a non-null receiver-path
     argument.

     If an MRCP is seen before any message text has been stored, the
     sender in effect is trying to send a null message; some receivers
     might allow this, others would return an error code.



[Page 12]                                               Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



     -------------------------------------------------------------

                    Example of MRSQ T (Text First)

        First the sender must establish that the receiver implements
        MRSQ.

           S: MRSQ ? <CRLF>
           R: 215 T Text first, please

        MRSQ is indeed implemented, and the receiver says that it
        prefers "T", but that needn't stop the sender from trying
        something else.

           S: MRSQ R <CRLF>
           R: 504 Sorry, I really can't do that

        It's possible that it could have understood "R" also, but in
        general it's best to use the "preferred" scheme, since the
        receiver knows which is most efficient for its particular site.

           S: MRSQ T <CRLF>
           R: 200 OK, using that scheme

        Scheme "T" is now selected, and the message text is sent by
        giving a mail command with no receiver-path argument.

           S: MAIL FROM:<WALDO@A><CRLF>
           R: 354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>
           S: Blah blah blah blah....etc. etc. etc.
           S: <CRLF>.<CRLF>
           R: 250 Mail stored

        Now recipients can be specified.

           S: MRCP TO:<Foo@Y> <CRLF>
           R: 250 Stored mail sent

           S: MRCP TO:<Raboof@Y> <CRLF>
           R: 550 No such user here

           S: MRCP TO:<bar@Y> <CRLF>
           R: 250 Stored mail sent

           S: MRCP TO:<@Y,@X,fubar@Z> <CRLF>
           R: 250 Mail accepted for relaying



Sluizer & Postel                                               [Page 13]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



        The text has now been sent to "Foo" and "bar" at host "Y" and
        will be relayed to "fubar@Z" through host "X", and still
        remains stored.  A new message can be sent with another
        MAIL/MRCP ... sequence, but a careful sender would reset the
        state using the exchange below.

           S: MRSQ ? <CRLF>
           R: 215 T Text first, please

        Which resets the state without altering the scheme in effect.

                              Example 3

     -------------------------------------------------------------

  4.6.  DISCUSSION

     Because these commands are not required in the minimum
     implementation of MTP, one must be prepared to deal with sites
     which don't recognize either MRSQ or MRCP.  "MRSQ" and "MRSQ ?"
     are explicitly designed as tests to see whether either scheme is
     implemented.  MRCP is not designed as a test, and a failure return
     of the "unimplemented" variety could be confused with "No scheme
     selected yet", or even with "Recipient unknown".

     There is no way to indicate in a positive response to "MRSQ ?"
     that the preferred "scheme" for a receiver is that of the default
     state; i.e., none of the multi-recipient schemes.  The rationale
     is that in this case, it would be pointless to implement MRSQ/MRCP
     at all, and the response would therefore be negative.

     One reason that the use of MAIL is restricted to null
     receiver-path arguments with this multi-recipient extension is the
     ambiguity that would result if a non-null receiver-path argument
     were allowed.  For example, if MRSQ R was in effect and some MRCPs
     had been given, and a MAIL FROM:<X@Y> TO:<FOO@Z><CRLF> was done,
     there would be no way to distinguish a failure reply for mailbox
     "FOO" from a global failure for all recipients specified.  A
     similar situation exists for MRSQ T; it would not be clear whether
     the text was stored and the mailbox failed, or vice versa, or
     both.

     "Resets" of all schemes are done by all MRSQs and "normal" MAILs
     to avoid confusion and overly complicated implementation.  The
     MRSQ command implies a change or uncertainty of status, and the
     MAIL command would otherwise have to use some independent



[Page 14]                                               Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



     mechanisms to avoid clobbering the data bases (e.g., message text
     storage area) used by the T/R schemes.  However, once a scheme is
     selected, it remains in effect.  The recommended way for doing a
     reset, without changing the current selection, is with "MRSQ ?".
     Remember that "MRSQ" alone reverts to the no-scheme state.












































Sluizer & Postel                                               [Page 15]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



5.  SPECIFICATIONS

  5.1.  MTP COMMANDS

     5.1.1.  COMMAND SEMANTICS

        The MTP commands define the mail transfer or the mail system
        function requested by the user.  MTP commands are character
        strings terminated by <CRLF>.  The command codes themselves are
        alphabetic characters terminated by <SP> if parameters follow
        and <CRLF> otherwise.  The syntax of mailboxes must conform to
        receiver site conventions. The MTP commands are discussed
        below.  MTP replies are discussed in the Section 5.2.

        MAIL (MAIL)

           This command is used to send mail over the transmission
           channel.  The argument field contains a sender-path sequence
           and optional receiver-path sequence.

           The sender-path sequence consists of an optional list of
           hosts and the sender mailbox.  When the list of hosts is
           present, it is "reverse" source routing information and
           indicates that the mail was relayed through each host on the
           list (the first host in the list was the most recent relay).
           This list is used as source routing to return non-delivery
           notices to the sender.  As each relay host adds itself to
           the beginning of the list, it must use its name as known in
           the network to which it is relaying the mail rather than the
           network from which the mail came (if they are different).

           If the receiver-path sequence is present, it consists of an
           optional list of hosts and a destination mailbox.  When the
           list of hosts is present, it is source routing information
           and indicates that the mail must be relayed to the first
           host on the list.

           The receiver treats the lines following the command as mail
           text from the sender.  The mail text is terminated by the
           character sequence "<CRLF>.<CRLF>", (see Section 5.5.2 on
           Transparency).

           As mail is relayed along the receiver-path sequence, each
           relay host must remove itself from the path sequence and put
           itself at the beginning of the sender-path sequence.  When
           mail reaches its ultimate destination (the receiver-path



[Page 16]                                               Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



           sequence has only a destination mailbox), the receiver-MTP
           inserts it into the destination mailbox in accordance with
           its host mail conventions.  (For example, "MAIL FROM:<X@Y>
           TO:<@A,@B,C@D> <CRLF>" will eventually be relayed as "MAIL
           FROM:<@A,X@Y> TO:<@B,C@D> <CRLF>.)

           If the receiver-path sequence is empty, the mail is destined
           for a printer or other designated place for host general
           delivery mail (if allowed at this host).  The mail may be
           marked as sent from the sender as specified in the
           sender-path sequence field.

        MAIL RECIPIENT SCHEME QUESTION (MRSQ)

           This MTP command is used to select a scheme for the
           transmission of mail to several users at the same host.  The
           schemes are recipients-first, or text-first.

        MAIL RECIPIENT (MRCP)

           This command is used to identify the individual recipients
           of the mail in the transmission of mail for multiple users
           at one host.

        HELP (HELP)

           This command causes the receiver to send helpful information
           regarding its implementation status over the transmission
           channel to the receiver.  The command may take an argument
           (e.g., any command name) and return more specific
           information as a response.

        QUIT (QUIT)

           This command specifies that the receiver must close the
           transmission channel.

        NOOP (NOOP)

           This command does not affect any parameters or previously
           entered commands.  It specifies no action other than that
           the receiver send an OK reply.







Sluizer & Postel                                               [Page 17]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



        CONTINUE (CONT)

           This command specifies that the previously specified action
           is to be continued.  This is sent only following a
           preliminary reply.

        ABORT (ABRT)

           This command specifies that the previously specified action
           is to be aborted.  This is sent only following a preliminary
           reply.  It specifies no further action other than that the
           receiver send an OK reply.

     5.1.2.  COMMAND SYNTAX

        The commands begin with a command code followed by an argument
        field.  The command codes are four alphabetic characters.
        Upper and lower case alphabetic characters are to be treated
        identically.  Thus any of the following may represent the mail
        command:

           MAIL    Mail    mail    MaIl    mAIl

        This also applies to any symbols representing parameter values,
        such as R or r for RECIPIENT first.  The command codes and the
        argument fields are separated by one or more spaces.

        But, note that in the sender-path and receiver-path arguments
        case is important.  In particular, in some hosts the user "foo"
        is different from the user "Foo".

        The argument field consists of a variable length character
        string ending with the character sequence <CRLF>.  It should be
        noted that the receiver is to take no action until the end of
        the line is received.

        Square brackets denote an optional argument field.  If the
        option is not taken, the appropriate default is implied.  All
        characters are in the ASCII characters set.










[Page 18]                                               Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



        The following are the MTP commands:

        MAIL <SP> FROM:<sender-path> [<SP> TO:<receiver-path>] <CRLF>

        MRSQ [<SP> <scheme>] <CRLF>

        MRCP <SP> TO:<receiver-path> <CRLF>

        HELP [<SP> <string>] <CRLF>

        QUIT <CRLF>

        NOOP <CRLF>

        CONT <CRLF>

        ABRT <CRLF>
































Sluizer & Postel                                               [Page 19]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



        The syntax of the above argument fields (using BNF notation
        where applicable) is given below.  The "..." notation indicates
        that a field may be repeated one or more times.

           <sender-path> ::= <path>

           <receiver-path> ::= <path>

           <scheme> ::= "R" | "T" | "?"

           <string> ::= <char> | <char> <string>

           <path> ::= "<" ["@" <host> "," ...] <mailbox> ">"

           <host> ::= <a> <string> | "#" <number> | "[" <dotnum> "]"

           <mailbox> ::= <user> "@" <host>

           <user> ::= <string>

           <char> ::= <c> | '\' <c> | '\' <s>

           <dotnum> ::= <snum> "." <snum> "." <snum> "." <snum>

           <number> ::= <d> | <d> <number>

           <snum> ::= three digits representing an integer value in the
           range 0 through 255

           <specials> ::= '<', '>', '(', ')', '\', ',', ';', ':', '@',
           '"', and the control characters (ASCII codes 0 through 37
           octal inclusive and 177 octal)

           <a> ::= any one of the 26 letters A through Z in either case

           <c> ::= any one of the 128 ASCII characters except
           <specials>

           <d> ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9

           <s> ::= any one of <specials>

           Note that the backslash, '\', is a quote character, which is
           used to indicate that the next character is to be used
           literally instead of with its normal interpretation.  For




[Page 20]                                               Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



           example, "Joe\,Smith" could be used to indicate a single
           nine character user field with comma being the fourth
           character of the field.

        Hosts are generally known by names which are translated to
        addresses  in each host.  Sometimes a host is not known to the
        translation function and communication is blocked.  To bypass
        this barrier numeric forms are also allowed for host "names".
        One form is a decimal integer prefixed by a pound sign, "#",
        which indicates the number is the address of the host.  Another
        form is four small decimal integers separated by dots and
        enclosed by brackets, e.g., "[123.255.37.321]", which indicates
        a 32 bit ARPA Internet Address in four eight bit fields.




































Sluizer & Postel                                               [Page 21]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



  5.2.  MTP REPLIES

     Replies to MTP commands are devised to ensure the synchronization
     of requests and actions in the process of mail transfer, and to
     guarantee that the sender-MTP always knows the state of the
     receiver-MTP.  Every command must generate exactly one reply.
     Additionally, some commands must occur sequentially, such as
     MRSQ T->MAIL->MRCP or MRSQ R->MRCP->MAIL.

        The details of the command-reply sequence are made explicit in
        the Sections 5.3 and 5.4 on Sequencing and State Diagrams.

     An MTP reply consists of a three digit number (transmitted as
     three alphanumeric characters) followed by some text.  The number
     is intended for use by automata to determine what state to enter
     next; the text is meant for the human user.  It is intended that
     the three digits contain enough encoded information that the
     sender-MTP will not need to examine the text and may either
     discard it or pass it on to the user, as appropriate.  In
     particular, the text may be receiver-dependent, so there are
     likely to be varying texts for each reply code. Further
     explanation of the assignment of reply codes is given in the
     Appendix E on the Theory of Reply Codes.  Formally, a reply is
     defined to be the sequence:  a three-digit code, <SP>, one line of
     text, and <CRLF>.
























[Page 22]                                               Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



     5.2.1.  REPLY CODES BY FUNCTION GROUPS

        200 Command okay
        201 Command okay, action aborted
        500 Syntax error, command unrecognized
           [This may include errors such as command line too long]
        501 Syntax error in parameters or arguments
        502 Command not implemented
        503 Bad sequence of commands
        504 Command parameter not implemented

        211 System status, or system help reply
        214 Help message
           [Information on how to use the receiver or the meaning of a
           particular non-standard command; this reply is useful only
           to the human user]
        215 <scheme> is the preferred scheme

        120 <host> Service ready in nnn minutes
        220 <host> Service ready for new user
        221 <host> Service closing transmission channel
        421 <host> Service not available, closing transmission channel
           [This may be a reply to any command if the service knows it
           must shut down]

        151 User not local; will forward to <user>@<host>
        152 User unknown; mail will be forwarded by the operator
        250 Requested mail action okay, completed
        450 Requested mail action not taken: mailbox unavailable
           [E.g., mailbox busy]
        550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable
           [E.g., mailbox not found, no access]
        451 Requested action aborted: local error in processing
        452 Requested action not taken: insufficient system storage
        552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation
           [For current mailbox location]
        553 Requested action not taken: mailbox name not allowed
           [E.g., mailbox syntax incorrect]
        354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>










Sluizer & Postel                                               [Page 23]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



     5.2.2.  NUMERIC ORDER LIST OF REPLY CODES

        120 <host> Service ready in nnn minutes
        151 User not local; will forward to <user>@<host>
        152 User unknown; mail will be forwarded by the operator

        200 Command okay
        201 Command okay, action aborted
        211 System status, or system help reply
        214 Help message
           [Information on how to use the receiver or the meaning of a
           particular non-standard command; this reply is useful only
           to the human user]
        215 <scheme> is the preferred scheme
        220 <host> Service ready for new user
        221 <host> Service closing transmission channel
        250 Requested mail action okay, completed

        354 Start mail input; end with <CRLF>.<CRLF>

        421 <host> Service not available, closing transmission channel
           [This may be a reply to any command if the service knows it
           must shut down]
        450 Requested mail action not taken: mailbox unavailable
           [E.g., mailbox busy]
        451 Requested action aborted: local error in processing
        452 Requested action not taken: insufficient system storage

        500 Syntax error, command unrecognized
           [This may include errors such as command line too long]
        501 Syntax error in parameters or arguments
        502 Command not implemented
        503 Bad sequence of commands
        504 Command parameter not implemented
        550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable
           [E.g., mailbox not found, no access]
        552 Requested mail action aborted: exceeded storage allocation
           [For current mailbox location]
        553 Requested action not taken: mailbox name not allowed
           [E.g., mailbox syntax incorrect]









[Page 24]                                               Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



  5.3.  SEQUENCING OF COMMANDS AND REPLIES

     The communication between the sender and receiver is intended to
     be an alternating dialogue.  As such, the sender issues an MTP
     command and the receiver responds with a prompt primary reply.
     The sender should wait for this response before sending further
     commands.

     The preliminary (1xx) and intermediate (3xx) replies indicate that
     further commands and information are required to complete the
     required action.  The preliminary replies require either a
     continue or abort command to proceed; the intermediate replies
     require action dependent further commands.

     One important reply is the connection greetings.  Under normal
     circumstances, a receiver will send a 220 "Awaiting input" reply
     when the connection is completed.  The sender should wait for this
     greeting message before sending any commands.  If the receiver is
     unable to accept input right away, it should send a 120 "Expected
     delay" reply immediately.  The sender can then indicate it is
     willing to wait via a continue command, or not via the abort
     command.  The receiver will respond to the abort with a 201 reply,
     and to the continue with the 220 reply when ready.

        Note: all the greeting type replies have the official name of
        the server host as the first word following the reply code.

           For example,

              220 <SP> USC-ISIF <SP> Service ready <CRLF>

     The table below lists alternative success and failure replies for
     each command.  These must be strictly adhered to; a receiver may
     substitute text in the replies, but the meaning and action implied
     by the code numbers and by the specific command reply sequence
     cannot be altered.

     COMMAND-REPLY SEQUENCES

        Each command is listed with its possible replies.  Preliminary
        replies are listed first with their succeeding replies indented
        under them, then success and failure completion, and finally
        intermediary replies with the remaining commands from the
        sequence following.  The prefixes used before the possible
        replies are "P" for preliminary, "I" for intermediate, "S" for
        success, "F" for failure, and "E" for error.  The 421 reply



Sluizer & Postel                                               [Page 25]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



        (service not available, closing transmission channel) may be
        given to any command if the MTP-receiver knows it must shut
        down.  This listing forms the basis for the State Diagrams, in
        Section 5.4.

           CONNECTION ESTABLISHMENT
              P: 120 -> CONT -> S: 220
                                F: 421
                        ABRT    S: 201
                                F: 421
              S: 220
              F: 421
           MAIL
              P: 151 -> CONT -> I: 354 -> text -> S: 250
                 152                              F: 451,552,450,
                                                     550,452,553
                        ABRT -> S: 201
                                F: 451,552,450,550,452,553
              I: 354 -> text -> S: 250
                                F: 451,552,450,550,452,553
              F: 451, 552, 450, 550, 452, 553
              E: 500, 501, 502, 421
           MRSQ
              S: 200, 215
              E: 500, 501, 502, 504, 421
           MRCP
              P: 151 -> CONT -> S: 200, 215, 250
                 152            F: 451,552,450,550,452,553
                        ABRT -> S: 201
                                F: 451,552,450,550,452,553
              S: 200, 215, 250
              F: 451, 552, 450, 550, 452, 553
              E: 500, 501, 502, 503, 421
















[Page 26]                                               Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



           QUIT
              S: 221
              E: 500, 421
           HELP
              S: 211, 214
              E: 500, 501, 502, 504, 421
           NOOP
              S: 200
              E: 500, 421
           CONT
              S: depends on previous command
              F: depends on previous command
              E: 500, 501, 502, 504, 421
           ABRT
              S: 201,
              E: 500, 501, 502, 504, 421

































Sluizer & Postel                                               [Page 27]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



  5.4.  STATE DIAGRAMS

     Following are state diagrams for a very simple minded MTP
     implementation.  Only the first digit of the reply codes is used.
     There is one state diagram for each group of MTP commands.

     The command groupings were determined by constructing a model for
     each command and then collecting together the commands with
     structurally identical models.

     For each command there are three possible outcomes:  "success"
     (S), "failure" (F), and "error" (E). In the state diagrams below
     we use the symbol B for "begin", and the symbol W for "wait for
     reply".

     First, the diagram that represents most of the MTP commands:


                                 1,3    +---+
                            ----------->| E |
                           |            +---+
                           |
        +---+    cmd    +---+    2      +---+
        | B |---------->| W |---------->| S |
        +---+           +---+           +---+
                           |
                           |     4,5    +---+
                            ----------->| F |
                                        +---+


        This diagram models the commands:

           HELP, MRCP, MRSQ, NOOP, QUIT, ABRT.















[Page 28]                                               Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



     A more complex diagram models the MAIL command:


                             ABRT       +---+ 1,3
                CONT ---- ------------->| W |-------
                    |    |              +---+       |
                    |    |1           4,5|  |2      V
        +---+  cmd   -->+---+ 2          |  |     +---+
        | B |---------->| W |-------------------->| E |
        +---+           +---+        ------------>+---+
                        3| |4,5     |    |  |
                         | |        |    |  |
           --------------  ------   |    |  |
          |                      |  |    |   ---->+---+
          |               ----------------------->| S |
          |              |       |  |    |        +---+
          |              |  --------     |
          |              | |     |       |
          V             2| |1,3  |       |
        +---+   text    +---+    |        ------->+---+
        |   |---------->| W |     --------------->| F |
        +---+           +---+-------------------->+---+
                             4,5


        Note that the "text" here is a series of lines sent from the
        sender to the receiver with no response expected until the last
        line is sent.





















Sluizer & Postel                                               [Page 29]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



  5.5.  DETAILS

     5.5.1.  MINIMUM IMPLEMENTATION

        In order to make MTP workable, the following minimum
        implementation is required for all receivers:

           COMMANDS -- MAIL
                       QUIT
                       NOOP

     5.5.2.  TRANSPARENCY

        Without some provision for data transparency the character
        sequence "<CRLF>.<CRLF>" ends the the mail text and cannot be
        sent by the user.  In general, users are not aware of such
        "forbidden"  sequences.  To allow all user composed text to be
        transmitted transparently the following procedures are used.

        1. Before sending a line of mail text the sender-MTP checks the
        first character of the line.  If it is a period, one additional
        period is inserted at the beginning of the line.

        2. When a line of mail text is received by the receiver-MTP it
        checks the the line.  If the line is composed of a single
        period it is the end of mail.  If the first character is a
        period and there are other characters on the line, the first
        character is deleted.

     5.5.3.  SIZES

        There are several objects that ought to have defined maximum
        sizes.

           user

              The maximum total length of a user name is 40 characters.

           host

              The maximum total length of a host name or number is 20
              characters.







[Page 30]                                               Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



           path

              The maximum total length of a sender-path or
              receiver-path is 100 characters.

           command line

              The maximum total length of a command line including the
              command word and the <CRLF> is 200 characters.

           reply line

              The maximum total length of a reply line including the
              reply code and the <CRLF> is 65 characters.

           text line

              The maximum total length of a text line including the the
              <CRLF> is 1000 characters.

        To the maximum extent possible implementation techniques which
        impose no limits at all to the length of these objects should
        be used.


























Sluizer & Postel                                               [Page 31]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



APPENDIX A

  TCP Transport service

     The Transmission Control Protocol [1] is used in the ARPA
     Internet, and in any network following the US DoD standards for
     internetwork protocols.

     Connection Establishment

        The MTP transmission channel is a TCP connection established
        between the sender process port U and the receiver process port
        L.  This single full duplex connection is used as the
        transmission channel.  This protocol is assigned the service
        port 57 (71 octal), that is L=57.

     Data Transfer

        The TCP connection supports the transmission of 8-bit bytes.
        The MTP data is 7-bit ASCII characters.  Each character is
        transmitted as a 8-bit byte with the high-order bit cleared to
        zero.



























[Page 32]                                               Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



APPENDIX B

  NCP Transport service

     The ARPANET Host-to-Host Protocol [2] (implemented by the Network
     Control Program) may be used in the ARPANET.

     Connection Establishment

        The MTP transmission channel is established via NCP between the
        the sender process socket U and receiver process socket L.  The
        Initial Connection Protocol [3] is followed resulting in a pair
        of simplex connections.  This pair of connections is used as
        the transmission channel.  This protocol is assigned the
        contact socket 57 (71 octal), that is L=57.

     Data Transfer

        The NCP data connections are established in 8-bit byte mode.
        The MTP data is 7-bit ASCII characters.  Each character is
        transmitted as a 8-bit byte with the high-order bit cleared to
        zero.



























Sluizer & Postel                                               [Page 33]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



APPENDIX C

  NITS

     The Network Independent Transport Service [4] may be used.

     Connection Establishment

        The MTP transmission channel is established via NITS between
        the the sender process and receiver process.  The sender
        process executes the CONNECT primitive, and the waiting
        receiver process executes the ACCEPT primitive.

     Data Transfer

        The NITS connection supports the transmission of 8-bit bytes.
        The MTP data is 7-bit ASCII characters.  Each character is
        transmitted as a 8-bit byte with the high-order bit cleared to
        zero.






























[Page 34]                                               Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



APPENDIX D

  X.25 Transport service

     It may be possible to use the X.25 service [5] as provided by the
     Public Data Networks directly, but there are indications that it
     is too error prone to qualify as a reliable channel.  It is
     suggested that a reliable end-to-end protocol such as TCP be used
     on top of X.25 connections.








































Sluizer & Postel                                               [Page 35]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



APPENDIX E

  Theory of Reply Codes

     The three digits of the reply each have a special significance.
     The first digit denotes whether the response is good, bad or
     incomplete.  An unsophisticated sender-MTP will be able to
     determine its next action (proceed as planned, redo, retrench,
     etc.) by simply examining this first digit.  A sender-MTP that
     wants to know approximately what kind of error occurred (e.g.,
     mail system error, command syntax error) may examine the second
     digit, reserving the third digit for the finest gradation of
     information.

        There are five values for the first digit of the reply code:

           1yz   Positive Preliminary reply

              The command has been accepted, but the requested action
              is being held in abeyance, pending confirmation of the
              information in this reply.  The sender-MTP should send
              another command specifying whether to continue or abort
              the action.

           2yz   Positive Completion reply

              The requested action has been successfully completed.  A
              new request may be initiated.

           3yz   Positive Intermediate reply

              The command has been accepted, but the requested action
              is being held in abeyance, pending receipt of further
              information.  The sender-MTP should send another command
              specifying this information.  This reply is used in
              command sequence groups.

           4yz   Transient Negative Completion reply

              The command was not accepted and the requested action did
              not occur.  However, the error condition is temporary and
              the action may be requested again.  The sender should
              return to the beginning of the command sequence (if any).
              It is difficult to assign a meaning to "transient" when
              two different sites (receiver- and sender- MTPs) must
              agree on the interpretation.  Each reply in this category



[Page 36]                                               Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



              might have a different time value, but the sender-MTP is
              encouraged to try again.  A rule of thumb to determine if
              a reply fits into the 4yz or the 5yz category (see below)
              is that replies are 4yz if they can be repeated without
              any change in command form or in properties of the sender
              or receiver.  (E.g., the command is repeated identically;
              the receiver does not put up a new implementation).

           5yz   Permanent Negative Completion reply

              The command was not accepted and the requested action did
              not occur.  The sender-MTP is discouraged from repeating
              the exact request (in the same sequence).  Even some
              "permanent" error conditions can be corrected, so the
              human user may want to direct the sender-MTP to
              reinitiate the command sequence by direct action at some
              point in the future (e.g., after the spelling has been
              changed, or the user has altered the account status.)

        The second digit encodes responses in specific categories:

           x0z   Syntax -- These replies refer to syntax errors,
                 syntactically correct commands that don't fit any
                 functional category, and unimplemented or superfluous
                 commands.

           x1z   Information --  These are replies to requests for
                 information, such as status or help.

           x2z   Connections -- These are replies referring to the
                 transmission channel.

           x3z   Unspecified as yet.

           x4z   Unspecified as yet.

           x5z   Mail system -- These replies indicate the status of
                 the receiver mail system vis-a-vis the requested
                 transfer or other mail system action.

        The third digit gives a finer gradation of meaning in each
        category specified by the second digit.  The list of replies
        illustrates this.  Each reply text is recommended rather than
        mandatory, and may even change according to the command with
        which it is associated.  On the other hand, the reply codes
        must strictly follow the specifications in this section.



Sluizer & Postel                                               [Page 37]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



        Receiver implementations should not invent new codes for
        slightly different situations from the ones described here, but
        rather adapt codes already defined.

        For example, a command such as NOOP whose successful execution
        does not offer the sender-MTP any new information will return a
        200 reply.  The response is 502 when the command requests an
        unimplemented non-site-specific action.  A refinement of that
        is the 504 reply for a command that is implemented, but that
        requests an unimplemented parameter.

     The reply text may be longer than a single line; in these cases
     the complete text must be marked so the sender-MTP knows when it
     can stop reading the reply.  This requires a special format to
     indicate a multiple line reply.

        The format for multi-line replies requires that every line,
        except the last, begin with the reply code, followed
        immediately by a hyphen, "-" (also known as minus), followed by
        text.  The last line will begin with the reply code, followed
        immediately by <SP>, optionally some text, and <CRLF>.

           For example:
                               123-First line
                               123-Second line
                               123-234 text beginning with numbers
                               123 The last line

        The sender-MTP then simply needs to search for the reply code
        followed by <SP> at the beginning of a line, and ignore all
        preceding lines.


















[Page 38]                                               Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



GLOSSARY

  ASCII

     American Standard Code for Information Interchange [6].

  command

     A request for a mail service action sent by the sender-MTP to the
     receiver-MTP.

  host

     A computer in the internetwork environment on which mailboxes or
     MTP processes reside.

  line

     A line of text ending with a <CRLF>.

  mail

     A sequence of ASCII characters of arbitrary length, which conforms
     to the standard set in RFC 733 (Standard for the Format of ARPA
     Network Text Messages [7]).

  mailbox

     A character string (address) which identifies a user to whom mail
     is to be sent.  Mailbox normally consists of the host and user
     specifications.  The standard mailbox naming convention is defined
     to be "user@host".  Additionally, the "container" in which mail is
     stored.

  receiver-MTP process

     A process which transfers mail in cooperation with a sender-MTP
     process.  It waits for a connection to be established via the
     transport service.  It receives MTP commands from the sender-MTP,
     sends replies, and governs the transfer of mail.









Sluizer & Postel                                               [Page 39]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



  reply

     A reply is an acknowledgment (positive or negative) sent from
     receiver to sender via the transmission channel in response to a
     MTP command.  The general form of a reply is a completion code
     (including error codes) followed by a text string.  The codes are
     for use by programs and the text is usually intended for human
     users.

  sender-MTP process

     A process which transfers mail in cooperation with a receiver-MTP
     process.  A local language may be used in the user interface
     command/reply dialogue.  The sender-MTP initiates the transport
     service connection.  It initiates MTP commands, receives replies,
     and governs the transfer of mail.

  transmission channel

     A full-duplex communication path between a sender-MTP and a
     receiver-MTP for the exchange of commands, replies, and mail text.

  transport service

     Any reliable stream-oriented data communication services.  For
     example, NCP, TCP, NITS.

  user

     A human being (or a process on behalf of a human being) wishing to
     obtain mail transfer service.  In addition, a recipient of
     computer mail.

  word

     A human being (or a process on behalf of a human being) wishing to
     obtain mail transfer service.  In addition, a recipient of
     computer mail.

  <CRLF>

     The characters carriage return and line feed (in that order).







[Page 40]                                               Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



  <SP>

     The space character.














































Sluizer & Postel                                               [Page 41]



May 1981                                                         RFC 780
Mail Transfer Protocol



REFERENCES

  [1]  TCP

     Postel, J., ed., "DOD Standard Transmission Control Protocol",
     IEN 129, RFC 761, USC/Information Sciences Institute,
     NTIS ADA082609, January 1980.  Appears in: Computer Communication
     Review, Special Interest Group on Data Communications, ACM, V.10,
     N.4, October 1980.

  [2]  NCP

     McKenzie,A., "Host/Host Protocol for the ARPA Network", NIC 8246,
     January 1972.  Also in:  Feinler, E. and J. Postel, eds., "ARPANET
     Protocol Handbook", NIC 7104, for the Defense Communications
     Agency by SRI International, Menlo Park, California, Revised
     January 1978.

  [3]  Initial Connection Protocol

     Postel, J., "Official Initial Connection Protocol", NIC 7101,
     11 June 1971.  Also in:  Feinler, E. and J. Postel, eds., "ARPANET
     Protocol Handbook", NIC 7104, for the Defense Communications
     Agency by SRI International, Menlo Park, California, Revised
     January 1978.

  [4]  NITS

     PSS/SG3, "A Network Independent Transport Service", Study Group 3,
     The Post Office PSS Users Group, February 1980.  Available from
     the DCPU, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, UK.

  [5]  X.25

     CCITT, "Recommendation X.25 - Interface Between Data Terminal
     Equipment (DTE) and Data Circuit-terminating Equipment (DCE) for
     Terminals Operating in the Packet Mode on Public Data Networks,"
     CCITT Orange Book, Vol. VIII.2, International Telephone and
     Telegraph Consultative Committee, Geneva, 1976.










[Page 42]                                               Sluizer & Postel



RFC 780                                                         May 1981
                                                 Mail Transfer Protocol



  [6]  ASCII

     ASCII, "USA Code for Information Interchange", United States of
     America Standards Institute, X3.4, 1968.  Also in:  Feinler, E.
     and J. Postel, eds., "ARPANET Protocol Handbook", NIC 7104, for
     the Defense Communications Agency by SRI International, Menlo
     Park, California, Revised January 1978.

  [7]  RFC 733

     Crocker, D., J. Vittal, K. Pogran, and D. Henderson, "Standard for
     the Format of ARPA Network Text Messages," RFC 733, NIC 41952,
     November 1977.  Also in:  Feinler, E. and J. Postel, eds.,
     "ARPANET Protocol Handbook", NIC 7104, for the Defense
     Communications Agency by SRI International, Menlo Park,
     California, Revised January 1978.

































Sluizer & Postel                                               [Page 43]