Network Working Group G. Vaudreuil
Request for Comments: 3030 Lucent Technologies
Obsolete: 1830 December 2000
Category: Standards Track
SMTP Service Extensions
for Transmission of Large
and Binary MIME Messages
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This memo defines two extensions to the SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer
Protocol) service. The first extension enables a SMTP client and
server to negotiate the use of an alternative to the DATA command,
called "BDAT", for efficiently sending large MIME (Multipurpose
Internet Mail Extensions) messages. The second extension takes
advantage of the BDAT command to permit the negotiated sending of
MIME messages that employ the binary transfer encoding. This
document is intended to update and obsolete RFC 1830.
Working Group Summary
This protocol is not the product of an IETF working group, however
the specification resulted from discussions within the ESMTP working
group. The resulting protocol documented in RFC 1830 was classified
as experimental at that time due to questions about the robustness of
the Binary Content-Transfer-Encoding deployed in then existent MIME
implementations. As MIME has matured and other uses of the Binary
Content-Transfer-Encoding have been deployed, these concerns have
been allayed. With this document, Binary ESMTP is expected to become
standards-track.
Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 1]RFC 3030 Binary ESMTP December 2000
Document Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Overview ................................................... 2
2. Framework for the Large Message Extensions ................. 3
3. Framework for the Binary Service Extension ................. 5
4. Examples ................................................... 8
4.1 Simple Chunking .......................................... 8
4.2 Pipelining BINARYMIME .................................... 8
5. Security Considerations .................................... 9
6. References ................................................. 9
7. Author's Address ........................................... 10
8. Appendix A - Changes from RFC 1830 ......................... 11
9. Full Copyright Statement ................................... 12
1. Overview
The MIME extensions to the Internet message format provides for the
transmission of many kinds of data that were previously unsupported
in Internet mail. Anticipating the need to transport the new media
more efficiently, the SMTP protocol has been extended to provide
transport for new message types. RFC 1652 defines one such extension
for the transmission of unencoded 8-bit MIME messages [8BIT]. This
service extension permits the receiver SMTP to declare support for
8-bit body parts and the sender to request 8-bit transmission of a
particular message.
One expected result of the use of MIME is that the Internet mail
system will be expected to carry very large mail messages. In such
transactions, there is a performance-based desire to eliminate the
requirement that the message be scanned for "CR LF . CR LF" sequences
upon sending and receiving to detect the end of message.
Independent of the need to send large messages, Internet mail is
increasingly multimedia. There is a need to avoid the overhead of
base64 and quoted-printable encoding of binary objects sent using the
MIME message format over SMTP between hosts that support binary
message processing.
Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 2]RFC 3030 Binary ESMTP December 2000
This memo uses the mechanism defined in [ESMTP] to define two
extensions to the SMTP service whereby an SMTP server ("receiver-
SMTP") may declare support for the message chunking transmission mode
and support for the reception of Binary messages, which the SMTP
client ("sender-SMTP") is then free to use.
2. Framework for the Large Message Extensions
The following service extension is hereby defined:
1) The name of the data chunking service extension is "CHUNKING".
2) The EHLO keyword value associated with this extension is
"CHUNKING".
3) A new SMTP verb, BDAT, is defined as an alternative to the "DATA"
command of [RFC821]. The BDAT verb takes two arguments. The
first argument indicates the length, in octets, of the binary data
chunk. The second optional argument indicates that the data chunk
is the last.
bdat-cmd ::= "BDAT" SP chunk-size [ SP end-marker ] CR LF
chunk-size ::= 1*DIGIT
end-marker ::= "LAST"
4) This extension may be used for SMTP message submission. [Submit]
5) Servers that offer the BDAT extension MUST continue to support the
regular SMTP DATA command. Clients are free to use DATA to
transfer appropriately encoded to servers that support the
CHUNKING extension if they wish to do so.
The CHUNKING service extension enables the use of the BDAT
alternative to the DATA command. This extension can be used for any
message, whether 7-bit, 8BITMIME or BINARYMIME.
When a sender-SMTP wishes to send (using the MAIL command) a large
message using the CHUNKING extension, it first issues the EHLO
command to the receiver-SMTP. If the receiver-SMTP responds with
code 250 to the EHLO command and the response includes the EHLO
keyword value CHUNKING, then the receiver-SMTP is indicating that it
supports the BDAT command and will accept the sending of messages in
chunks.
After all MAIL and RCPT responses are collected and processed, the
message is sent using a series of BDAT commands. The BDAT command
takes one required argument, the exact length of the data segment in
Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 3]RFC 3030 Binary ESMTP December 2000
octets. The message data is sent immediately after the trailing <CR>
<LF> of the BDAT command line. Once the receiver-SMTP receives the
specified number of octets, it will return a 250 reply code.
The optional LAST parameter on the BDAT command indicates that this
is the last chunk of message data to be sent. The last BDAT command
MAY have a byte-count of zero indicating there is no additional data
to be sent. Any BDAT command sent after the BDAT LAST is illegal and
MUST be replied to with a 503 "Bad sequence of commands" reply code.
The state resulting from this error is indeterminate. A RSET command
MUST be sent to clear the transaction before continuing.
A 250 response MUST be sent to each successful BDAT data block within
a mail transaction. If a failure occurs after a BDAT command is
received, the receiver-SMTP MUST accept and discard the associated
message data before sending the appropriate 5XX or 4XX code. If a
5XX or 4XX code is received by the sender-SMTP in response to a BDAT
chunk, the transaction should be considered failed and the sender-
SMTP MUST NOT send any additional BDAT segments. If the receiver-
SMTP has declared support for command pipelining [PIPE], the receiver
SMTP MUST be prepared to accept and discard additional BDAT chunks
already in the pipeline after the failed BDAT.
Note: An error on the receiver-SMTP such as disk full or imminent
shutdown can only be reported after the BDAT segment has been
received. It is therefore important to choose a reasonable chunk
size given the expected end-to-end bandwidth.
Note: Because the receiver-SMTP does not acknowledge the BDAT
command before the message data is sent, it is important to send
the BDAT only to systems that have declared their capability to
accept BDAT commands. Illegally sending a BDAT command and
associated message data to a non-CHUNKING capable system will
result in the receiver-SMTP parsing the associated message data as
if it were a potentially very long, ESMTP command line containing
binary data.
The resulting state from a failed BDAT command is indeterminate. A
RSET command MUST be issued to clear the transaction before
additional commands may be sent. The RSET command, when issued after
the first BDAT and before the BDAT LAST, clears all segments sent
during that transaction and resets the session.
DATA and BDAT commands cannot be used in the same transaction. If a
DATA statement is issued after a BDAT for the current transaction, a
503 "Bad sequence of commands" MUST be issued. The state resulting
from this error is indeterminate. A RSET command MUST be sent to
Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 4]RFC 3030 Binary ESMTP December 2000
clear the transaction before continuing. There is no prohibition on
using DATA and BDAT in the same session, so long as they are not
mixed in the same transaction.
The local storage size of a message may not accurately reflect the
actual size of the message sent due to local storage conventions. In
particular, text messages sent with the BDAT command MUST be sent in
the canonical MIME format with lines delimited with a <CR><LF>. It
may not be possible to convert the entire message to the canonical
format at once. CHUNKING provides a mechanism to convert the message
to canonical form, accurately count the bytes, and send the message a
single chunk at a time.
Note: Correct byte counting is essential. If the sender-SMTP
indicates a chunk-size larger than the actual chunk-size, the
receiver-SMTP will continue to wait for the remainder of the data
or when using streaming, will read the subsequent command as
additional message data. In the case where a portion of the
previous command was read as data, the parser will return a syntax
error when the incomplete command is read.
If the sender-SMTP indicates a chunk-size smaller than the actual
chunk-size, the receiver-SMTP will interpret the remainder of the
message data as invalid commands. Note that the remainder of the
message data may be binary and as such lexicographical parsers
MUST be prepared to receive, process, and reject lines of
arbitrary octets.
3. Framework for the Binary Service Extension
The following service extension is hereby defined:
1) The name of the binary service extension is "BINARYMIME".
2) The EHLO keyword value associated with this extension is
"BINARYMIME".
3) The BINARYMIME service extension can only be used with the
"CHUNKING" service extension.
4) No parameter is used with the BINARYMIME keyword.
5) [8BIT] defines the BODY parameter for the MAIL command. This
extension defines an additional value for the BODY parameter,
"BINARYMIME". The value "BINARYMIME" associated with this
parameter indicates that this message is a Binary MIME message (in
Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 5]RFC 3030 Binary ESMTP December 2000
strict compliance with [MIME]) with arbitrary octet content being
sent. The revised syntax of the value is as follows, using the
ABNF notation of [RFC822]:
body-value ::= "7BIT" / "8BITMIME" / "BINARYMIME"
6) No new verbs are defined for the BINARYMIME extension.
7) This extension may be used for SMTP message submission. [Submit]
8) The maximum length of a MAIL FROM command line is increased by 16
characters by the possible addition of the BODY=BINARYMIME keyword
and value;.
A sender-SMTP may request that a binary MIME message be sent without
transport encoding by sending a BODY parameter with a value of
"BINARYMIME" with the MAIL command. When the receiver-SMTP accepts a
MAIL command with the BINARYMIME body-value, it agrees to preserve
all bits in each octet passed using the BDAT command. Once a
receiver-SMTP supporting the BINARYMIME service extension accepts a
message containing binary material, the receiver-SMTP MUST deliver or
relay the message in such a way as to preserve all bits in each
octet.
BINARYMIME cannot be used with the DATA command. If a DATA command
is issued after a MAIL command containing the body-value of
"BINARYMIME", a 503 "Bad sequence of commands" response MUST be sent.
The resulting state from this error condition is indeterminate and
the transaction MUST be reset with the RSET command.
It is especially important when using BINARYMIME to ensure that the
MIME message itself is properly formed. In particular, it is
essential that text be canonically encoded with each line properly
terminated with <CR><LF>. Any transformation of text into non-
canonical MIME to observe local storage conventions MUST be reversed
before sending as BINARYMIME. Some line-oriented shortcuts will
break if used with BINARYMIME. A sender-SMTP MUST use the canonical
encoding for a given MIME content-type. In particular, text/* MUST
be sent with <CR><LF> terminated lines.
Note: Although CR and LF do not necessarily represent ends of text
lines in BDAT chunks and use of the binary transfer encoding is
allowed, the RFC 2781 prohibition against using a UTF-16 charset
within the text top-level media type remains.
Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 6]RFC 3030 Binary ESMTP December 2000
The syntax of the extended MAIL command is identical to the MAIL
command in [RFC821], except that a BODY=BINARYMIME parameter and
value MUST be added. The complete syntax of this extended command is
defined in [ESMTP].
If a receiver-SMTP does not indicate support the BINARYMIME message
format then the sender-SMTP MUST NOT, under any circumstances, send
binary data.
If the receiver-SMTP does not support BINARYMIME and the message to
be sent is a MIME object with a binary encoding, a sender-SMTP has
three options with which to forward the message. First, if the
receiver-SMTP supports the 8bit-MIMEtransport extension [8bit] and
the content is amenable to being encoded in 8bit, the sender-SMTP may
implement a gateway transformation to convert the message into valid
8bit-encoded MIME. Second, it may implement a gateway transformation
to convert the message into valid 7bit-encoded MIME. Third, it may
treat this as a permanent error and handle it in the usual manner for
delivery failures. The specifics of MIME content-transfer-encodings,
including transformations from Binary MIME to 8bit or 7bit MIME are
not described by this RFC; the conversion is nevertheless constrained
in the following ways:
1. The conversion MUST cause no loss of information; MIME
transport encodings MUST be employed as needed to insure this
is the case.
2. The resulting message MUST be valid 7bit or 8bit MIME. In
particular, the transformation MUST NOT result in nested Base-
64 or Quoted-Printable content-transfer-encodings.
Note that at the time of this writing there are no mechanisms for
converting a binary MIME object into an 8-bit MIME object. Such a
transformation will require the specification of a new MIME content-
transfer-encoding.
If the MIME message contains a "Binary" content-transfer-encoding and
the BODY parameter does not indicate BINARYMIME, the message MUST be
accepted. The message SHOULD be returned to the sender with an
appropriate DSN. The message contents MAY be returned to the sender
if the offending content can be mangled into a legal DSN structure.
"Fixing" and forwarding the offending content is beyond the scope of
this document.
Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 7]RFC 3030 Binary ESMTP December 2000
4. Examples
4.1 Simple Chunking
The following simple dialogue illustrates the use of the large
message extension to send a short pseudo-RFC 822 message to one
recipient using the CHUNKING extension:
R: <wait for connection on TCP port 25>
S: <open connection to server>
R: 220 cnri.reston.va.us SMTP service ready
S: EHLO ymir.claremont.edu
R: 250-cnri.reston.va.us says hello
R: 250 CHUNKING
S: MAIL FROM:<Sam@Random.com>
R: 250 <Sam@Random.com> Sender ok
S: RCPT TO:<Susan@Random.com>
R: 250 <Susan@random.com> Recipient ok
S: BDAT 86 LAST
S: To: Susan@random.com<CR><LF>
S: From: Sam@random.com<CR><LF>
S: Subject: This is a bodyless test message<CR><LF>
R: 250 Message OK, 86 octets received
S: QUIT
R: 221 Goodbye
4.2 Pipelining BINARYMIME
The following dialogue illustrates the use of the large message
extension to send a BINARYMIME object to two recipients using the
CHUNKING and PIPELINING extensions:
R: <wait for connection on TCP port
S: <open connection to server>
R: 220 cnri.reston.va.us SMTP service ready
S: EHLO ymir.claremont.edu
R: 250-cnri.reston.va.us says hello
R: 250-PIPELINING
R: 250-BINARYMIME
R: 250 CHUNKING
S: MAIL FROM:<ned@ymir.claremont.edu> BODY=BINARYMIME
S: RCPT TO:<gvaudre@cnri.reston.va.us>
S: RCPT TO:<jstewart@cnri.reston.va.us>
R: 250 <ned@ymir.claremont.edu>... Sender and BINARYMIME ok
R: 250 <gvaudre@cnri.reston.va.us>... Recipient ok
R: 250 <jstewart@cnri.reston.va.us>... Recipient ok
S: BDAT 100000
S: (First 10000 octets of canonical MIME message data)
Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 3030 Binary ESMTP December 2000
S: BDAT 324
S: (Remaining 324 octets of canonical MIME message data)
S: BDAT 0 LAST
R: 250 100000 octets received
R: 250 324 octets received
R: 250 Message OK, 100324 octets received
S: QUIT
R: 221 Goodbye
5. Security Considerations
This extension is not known to present any additional security issues
not already endemic to electronic mail and present in fully
conforming implementations of [RFC821], or otherwise made possible by
[MIME].
6. References
[BINARY] Vaudreuil, G., "SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission of
Large and Binary MIME Messages", RFC 1830, August 1995.
[RFC821] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC
821, August 1982.
[RFC822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.
[MIME] Borenstein, N. and N. Freed, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[SUBMIT] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission", RFC 2476,
December 1998.
[ESMTP] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E. and D.
Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", RFC 1869, November
1995.
[8BIT] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E. and D.
Crocker, "SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport",
RFC 1652, July 1994.
[PIPE] Freed, N., "SMTP Service Extensions for Command
Pipelining", RFC 2920, September 2000.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 9]RFC 3030 Binary ESMTP December 2000
7. Author's Address
Gregory M. Vaudreuil
Lucent Technologies
17080 Dallas Parkway
Dallas, TX 75248-1905
Phone/Fax: +1-972-733-2722
EMail: GregV@ieee.org
Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 3030 Binary ESMTP December 2000
Appendix A - Changes from RFC 1830
Numerous editorial changes including required intellectual property
boilerplate and revised authors contact information
Corrected the simple chunking example to use the correct number of
bytes. Updated the pipelining example to illustrate use of the BDAT
0 LAST construct.
Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 3030 Binary ESMTP December 2000
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Vaudreuil Standards Track [Page 12]
