doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 899 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3463.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3463.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5544b2c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3463.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,899 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                       G. Vaudreuil
+Request for Comments: 3463                           Lucent Technologies
+Obsoletes: 1893                                             January 2003
+Category: Standards Track
+
+
+                   Enhanced Mail System Status Codes
+
+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 (2003).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines a set of extended status codes for use within
+   the mail system for delivery status reports, tracking, and improved
+   diagnostics.  In combination with other information provided in the
+   Delivery Status Notification (DSN) delivery report, these codes
+   facilitate media and language independent rendering of message
+   delivery status.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.   Overview ......................................................2
+   2.   Status Code Structure .........................................3
+   3.   Enumerated Status Codes .......................................5
+     3.1  Other or Undefined Status ...................................6
+     3.2  Address Status ..............................................6
+     3.3  Mailbox Status ..............................................7
+     3.4  Mail system status ..........................................8
+     3.5  Network and Routing Status ..................................9
+     3.6  Mail Delivery Protocol Status ..............................10
+     3.7  Message Content or Message Media Status ....................11
+     3.8  Security or Policy Status ..................................12
+   4.   References ...................................................13
+   5.   Security Considerations ......................................13
+        Appendix A - Collected Status Codes ..........................14
+        Appendix B - Changes from RFC1893 ............................15
+        Author's Address .............................................15
+        Full Copyright Statement .....................................16
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3463           Enhanced Mail System Status Codes        January 2003
+
+
+1. Overview
+
+   There is a need for a standard mechanism for the reporting of mail
+   system errors richer than the limited set offered by SMTP and the
+   system specific text descriptions sent in mail messages.  There is a
+   pressing need for a rich machine-readable, human language independent
+   status code for use in delivery status notifications [DSN].  This
+   document proposes a new set of status codes for this purpose.
+
+   SMTP [SMTP] error codes have historically been used for reporting
+   mail system errors.  Because of limitations in the SMTP code design,
+   these are not suitable for use in delivery status notifications.
+   SMTP provides about 12 useful codes for delivery reports.  The
+   majority of the codes are protocol specific response codes such as
+   the 354 response to the SMTP data command.  Each of the 12 useful
+   codes are overloaded to indicate several error conditions.  SMTP
+   suffers some scars from history, most notably the unfortunate damage
+   to the reply code extension mechanism by uncontrolled use.  This
+   proposal facilitates future extensibility by requiring the client to
+   interpret unknown error codes according to the theory of codes while
+   requiring servers to register new response codes.
+
+   The SMTP theory of reply codes are partitioned in the number space in
+   such a manner that the remaining available codes will not provide the
+   space needed.  The most critical example is the existence of only 5
+   remaining codes for mail system errors.  The mail system
+   classification includes both host and mailbox error conditions.  The
+   remaining third digit space would be completely consumed as needed to
+   indicate MIME and media conversion errors and security system errors.
+
+   A revision to the SMTP theory of reply codes to better distribute the
+   error conditions in the number space will necessarily be incompatible
+   with SMTP.  Further, consumption of the remaining reply-code number
+   space for delivery notification reporting will reduce the available
+   codes for new ESMTP extensions.
+
+   The following status code set is based on the SMTP theory of reply
+   codes.  It adopts the success, permanent error, and transient error
+   semantics of the first value, with a further description and
+   classification in the second.  This proposal re-distributes the
+   classifications to better distribute the error conditions, such as
+   separating mailbox from host errors.
+
+   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 BCP 14 [RFC2119].
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3463           Enhanced Mail System Status Codes        January 2003
+
+
+2. Status Code Structure
+
+   This document defines a new set of status codes to report mail system
+   conditions.  These status codes are used for media and language
+   independent status reporting.  They are not intended for system
+   specific diagnostics.
+
+   The syntax of the new status codes is defined as:
+
+      status-code = class "." subject "." detail
+
+      class = "2"/"4"/"5"
+
+      subject = 1*3digit
+
+      detail = 1*3digit
+
+   White-space characters and comments are NOT allowed within a status-
+   code.  Each numeric sub-code within the status-code MUST be expressed
+   without leading zero digits.
+
+   Status codes consist of three numerical fields separated by ".".  The
+   first sub-code indicates whether the delivery attempt was successful.
+   The second sub-code indicates the probable source of any delivery
+   anomalies, and the third sub-code indicates a precise error
+   condition.
+
+   Example:  2.1.23
+
+   The code space defined is intended to be extensible only by standards
+   track documents.  Mail system specific status codes should be mapped
+   as close as possible to the standard status codes.  Servers should
+   send only defined, registered status codes.  System specific errors
+   and diagnostics should be carried by means other than status codes.
+
+   New subject and detail codes will be added over time.  Because the
+   number space is large, it is not intended that published status codes
+   will ever be redefined or eliminated.  Clients should preserve the
+   extensibility of the code space by reporting the general error
+   described in the subject sub-code when the specific detail is
+   unrecognized.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3463           Enhanced Mail System Status Codes        January 2003
+
+
+   The class sub-code provides a broad classification of the status.
+   The enumerated values for each class are defined as:
+
+      2.XXX.XXX   Success
+
+         Success specifies that the DSN is reporting a positive delivery
+         action.  Detail sub-codes may provide notification of
+         transformations required for delivery.
+
+      4.XXX.XXX   Persistent Transient Failure
+
+         A persistent transient failure is one in which the message as
+         sent is valid, but persistence of some temporary condition has
+         caused abandonment or delay of attempts to send the message.
+         If this code accompanies a delivery failure report, sending in
+         the future may be successful.
+
+      5.XXX.XXX   Permanent Failure
+
+         A permanent failure is one which is not likely to be resolved
+         by resending the message in the current form.  Some change to
+         the message or the destination must be made for successful
+         delivery.
+
+   A client must recognize and report class sub-code even where
+   subsequent subject sub-codes are unrecognized.
+
+   The subject sub-code classifies the status.  This value applies to
+   each of the three classifications.  The subject sub-code, if
+   recognized, must be reported even if the additional detail provided
+   by the detail sub-code is not recognized.  The enumerated values for
+   the subject sub-code are:
+
+      X.0.XXX   Other or Undefined Status
+
+         There is no additional subject information available.
+
+      X.1.XXX Addressing Status
+
+         The address status reports on the originator or destination
+         address.  It may include address syntax or validity.  These
+         errors can generally be corrected by the sender and retried.
+
+      X.2.XXX Mailbox Status
+
+         Mailbox status indicates that something having to do with the
+         mailbox has caused this DSN.  Mailbox issues are assumed to be
+         under the general control of the recipient.
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3463           Enhanced Mail System Status Codes        January 2003
+
+
+      X.3.XXX Mail System Status
+
+         Mail system status indicates that something having to do with
+         the destination system has caused this DSN.  System issues are
+         assumed to be under the general control of the destination
+         system administrator.
+
+      X.4.XXX Network and Routing Status
+
+         The networking or routing codes report status about the
+         delivery system itself.  These system components include any
+         necessary infrastructure such as directory and routing
+         services.  Network issues are assumed to be under the control
+         of the destination or intermediate system administrator.
+
+      X.5.XXX Mail Delivery Protocol Status
+
+         The mail delivery protocol status codes report failures
+         involving the message delivery protocol.  These failures
+         include the full range of problems resulting from
+         implementation errors or an unreliable connection.
+
+      X.6.XXX Message Content or Media Status
+
+         The message content or media status codes report failures
+         involving the content of the message.  These codes report
+         failures due to translation, transcoding, or otherwise
+         unsupported message media.  Message content or media issues are
+         under the control of both the sender and the receiver, both of
+         which must support a common set of supported content-types.
+
+      X.7.XXX Security or Policy Status
+
+         The security or policy status codes report failures involving
+         policies such as per-recipient or per-host filtering and
+         cryptographic operations.  Security and policy status issues
+         are assumed to be under the control of either or both the
+         sender and recipient.  Both the sender and recipient must
+         permit the exchange of messages and arrange the exchange of
+         necessary keys and certificates for cryptographic operations.
+
+3. Enumerated Status Codes
+
+   The following section defines and describes the detail sub-code.  The
+   detail value provides more information about the status and is
+   defined relative to the subject of the status.
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3463           Enhanced Mail System Status Codes        January 2003
+
+
+3.1 Other or Undefined Status
+
+      X.0.0   Other undefined Status
+
+         Other undefined status is the only undefined error code.  It
+         should be used for all errors for which only the class of the
+         error is known.
+
+3.2 Address Status
+
+      X.1.0   Other address status
+
+         Something about the address specified in the message caused
+         this DSN.
+
+      X.1.1   Bad destination mailbox address
+
+         The mailbox specified in the address does not exist.  For
+         Internet mail names, this means the address portion to the left
+         of the "@" sign is invalid.  This code is only useful for
+         permanent failures.
+
+      X.1.2   Bad destination system address
+
+         The destination system specified in the address does not exist
+         or is incapable of accepting mail.  For Internet mail names,
+         this means the address portion to the right of the "@" is
+         invalid for mail.  This code is only useful for permanent
+         failures.
+
+      X.1.3   Bad destination mailbox address syntax
+
+         The destination address was syntactically invalid.  This can
+         apply to any field in the address.  This code is only useful
+         for permanent failures.
+
+      X.1.4   Destination mailbox address ambiguous
+
+         The mailbox address as specified matches one or more recipients
+         on the destination system.  This may result if a heuristic
+         address mapping algorithm is used to map the specified address
+         to a local mailbox name.
+
+      X.1.5   Destination address valid
+
+         This mailbox address as specified was valid.  This status code
+         should be used for positive delivery reports.
+
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3463           Enhanced Mail System Status Codes        January 2003
+
+
+      X.1.6   Destination mailbox has moved, No forwarding address
+
+         The mailbox address provided was at one time valid, but mail is
+         no longer being accepted for that address.  This code is only
+         useful for permanent failures.
+
+      X.1.7   Bad sender's mailbox address syntax
+
+         The sender's address was syntactically invalid.  This can apply
+         to any field in the address.
+
+      X.1.8   Bad sender's system address
+
+         The sender's system specified in the address does not exist or
+         is incapable of accepting return mail.  For domain names, this
+         means the address portion to the right of the "@" is invalid
+         for mail.
+
+3.3 Mailbox Status
+
+      X.2.0   Other or undefined mailbox status
+
+         The mailbox exists, but something about the destination mailbox
+         has caused the sending of this DSN.
+
+      X.2.1   Mailbox disabled, not accepting messages
+
+         The mailbox exists, but is not accepting messages.  This may be
+         a permanent error if the mailbox will never be re-enabled or a
+         transient error if the mailbox is only temporarily disabled.
+
+      X.2.2   Mailbox full
+
+         The mailbox is full because the user has exceeded a per-mailbox
+         administrative quota or physical capacity.  The general
+         semantics implies that the recipient can delete messages to
+         make more space available.  This code should be used as a
+         persistent transient failure.
+
+      X.2.3   Message length exceeds administrative limit
+
+         A per-mailbox administrative message length limit has been
+         exceeded.  This status code should be used when the per-mailbox
+         message length limit is less than the general system limit.
+         This code should be used as a permanent failure.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3463           Enhanced Mail System Status Codes        January 2003
+
+
+      X.2.4   Mailing list expansion problem
+
+         The mailbox is a mailing list address and the mailing list was
+         unable to be expanded.  This code may represent a permanent
+         failure or a persistent transient failure.
+
+3.4  Mail system status
+
+      X.3.0   Other or undefined mail system status
+
+         The destination system exists and normally accepts mail, but
+         something about the system has caused the generation of this
+         DSN.
+
+      X.3.1   Mail system full
+
+         Mail system storage has been exceeded.  The general semantics
+         imply that the individual recipient may not be able to delete
+         material to make room for additional messages.  This is useful
+         only as a persistent transient error.
+
+      X.3.2   System not accepting network messages
+
+         The host on which the mailbox is resident is not accepting
+         messages.  Examples of such conditions include an immanent
+         shutdown, excessive load, or system maintenance.  This is
+         useful for both permanent and persistent transient errors.
+
+      X.3.3   System not capable of selected features
+
+         Selected features specified for the message are not supported
+         by the destination system.  This can occur in gateways when
+         features from one domain cannot be mapped onto the supported
+         feature in another.
+
+      X.3.4   Message too big for system
+
+         The message is larger than per-message size limit.  This limit
+         may either be for physical or administrative reasons.  This is
+         useful only as a permanent error.
+
+      X.3.5 System incorrectly configured
+
+         The system is not configured in a manner that will permit it to
+         accept this message.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3463           Enhanced Mail System Status Codes        January 2003
+
+
+3.5 Network and Routing Status
+
+      X.4.0   Other or undefined network or routing status
+
+         Something went wrong with the networking, but it is not clear
+         what the problem is, or the problem cannot be well expressed
+         with any of the other provided detail codes.
+
+      X.4.1   No answer from host
+
+         The outbound connection attempt was not answered, because
+         either the remote system was busy, or was unable to take a
+         call.  This is useful only as a persistent transient error.
+
+      X.4.2   Bad connection
+
+         The outbound connection was established, but was unable to
+         complete the message transaction, either because of time-out,
+         or inadequate connection quality.  This is useful only as a
+         persistent transient error.
+
+      X.4.3   Directory server failure
+
+         The network system was unable to forward the message, because a
+         directory server was unavailable.  This is useful only as a
+         persistent transient error.
+
+         The inability to connect to an Internet DNS server is one
+         example of the directory server failure error.
+
+      X.4.4   Unable to route
+
+         The mail system was unable to determine the next hop for the
+         message because the necessary routing information was
+         unavailable from the directory server.  This is useful for both
+         permanent and persistent transient errors.
+
+         A DNS lookup returning only an SOA (Start of Administration)
+         record for a domain name is one example of the unable to route
+         error.
+
+      X.4.5   Mail system congestion
+
+         The mail system was unable to deliver the message because the
+         mail system was congested.  This is useful only as a persistent
+         transient error.
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                     [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3463           Enhanced Mail System Status Codes        January 2003
+
+
+      X.4.6   Routing loop detected
+
+         A routing loop caused the message to be forwarded too many
+         times, either because of incorrect routing tables or a user-
+         forwarding loop.  This is useful only as a persistent transient
+         error.
+
+      X.4.7   Delivery time expired
+
+         The message was considered too old by the rejecting system,
+         either because it remained on that host too long or because the
+         time-to-live value specified by the sender of the message was
+         exceeded.  If possible, the code for the actual problem found
+         when delivery was attempted should be returned rather than this
+         code.
+
+3.6 Mail Delivery Protocol Status
+
+      X.5.0   Other or undefined protocol status
+
+         Something was wrong with the protocol necessary to deliver the
+         message to the next hop and the problem cannot be well
+         expressed with any of the other provided detail codes.
+
+      X.5.1   Invalid command
+
+         A mail transaction protocol command was issued which was either
+         out of sequence or unsupported.  This is useful only as a
+         permanent error.
+
+      X.5.2   Syntax error
+
+         A mail transaction protocol command was issued which could not
+         be interpreted, either because the syntax was wrong or the
+         command is unrecognized.  This is useful only as a permanent
+         error.
+
+      X.5.3   Too many recipients
+
+         More recipients were specified for the message than could have
+         been delivered by the protocol.  This error should normally
+         result in the segmentation of the message into two, the
+         remainder of the recipients to be delivered on a subsequent
+         delivery attempt.  It is included in this list in the event
+         that such segmentation is not possible.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                    [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3463           Enhanced Mail System Status Codes        January 2003
+
+
+      X.5.4   Invalid command arguments
+
+         A valid mail transaction protocol command was issued with
+         invalid arguments, either because the arguments were out of
+         range or represented unrecognized features.  This is useful
+         only as a permanent error.
+
+      X.5.5   Wrong protocol version
+
+         A protocol version mis-match existed which could not be
+         automatically resolved by the communicating parties.
+
+3.7 Message Content or Message Media Status
+
+      X.6.0   Other or undefined media error
+
+         Something about the content of a message caused it to be
+         considered undeliverable and the problem cannot be well
+         expressed with any of the other provided detail codes.
+
+      X.6.1   Media not supported
+
+         The media of the message is not supported by either the
+         delivery protocol or the next system in the forwarding path.
+         This is useful only as a permanent error.
+
+      X.6.2   Conversion required and prohibited
+
+         The content of the message must be converted before it can be
+         delivered and such conversion is not permitted.  Such
+         prohibitions may be the expression of the sender in the message
+         itself or the policy of the sending host.
+
+      X.6.3   Conversion required but not supported
+
+         The message content must be converted in order to be forwarded
+         but such conversion is not possible or is not practical by a
+         host in the forwarding path.  This condition may result when an
+         ESMTP gateway supports 8bit transport but is not able to
+         downgrade the message to 7 bit as required for the next hop.
+
+      X.6.4   Conversion with loss performed
+
+         This is a warning sent to the sender when message delivery was
+         successfully but when the delivery required a conversion in
+         which some data was lost.  This may also be a permanent error
+         if the sender has indicated that conversion with loss is
+         prohibited for the message.
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                    [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3463           Enhanced Mail System Status Codes        January 2003
+
+
+      X.6.5   Conversion Failed
+
+         A conversion was required but was unsuccessful.  This may be
+         useful as a permanent or persistent temporary notification.
+
+3.8 Security or Policy Status
+
+      X.7.0   Other or undefined security status
+
+         Something related to security caused the message to be
+         returned, and the problem cannot be well expressed with any of
+         the other provided detail codes.  This status code may also be
+         used when the condition cannot be further described because of
+         security policies in force.
+
+      X.7.1   Delivery not authorized, message refused
+
+         The sender is not authorized to send to the destination.  This
+         can be the result of per-host or per-recipient filtering.  This
+         memo does not discuss the merits of any such filtering, but
+         provides a mechanism to report such.  This is useful only as a
+         permanent error.
+
+      X.7.2   Mailing list expansion prohibited
+
+         The sender is not authorized to send a message to the intended
+         mailing list.  This is useful only as a permanent error.
+
+      X.7.3   Security conversion required but not possible
+
+         A conversion from one secure messaging protocol to another was
+         required for delivery and such conversion was not possible.
+         This is useful only as a permanent error.
+
+      X.7.4   Security features not supported
+
+         A message contained security features such as secure
+         authentication that could not be supported on the delivery
+         protocol.  This is useful only as a permanent error.
+
+      X.7.5   Cryptographic failure
+
+         A transport system otherwise authorized to validate or decrypt
+         a message in transport was unable to do so because necessary
+         information such as key was not available or such information
+         was invalid.
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                    [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3463           Enhanced Mail System Status Codes        January 2003
+
+
+      X.7.6   Cryptographic algorithm not supported
+
+         A transport system otherwise authorized to validate or decrypt
+         a message was unable to do so because the necessary algorithm
+         was not supported.
+
+      X.7.7   Message integrity failure
+
+         A transport system otherwise authorized to validate a message
+         was unable to do so because the message was corrupted or
+         altered.  This may be useful as a permanent, transient
+         persistent, or successful delivery code.
+
+4. Normative References
+
+   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [SMTP]    Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC
+             821, August 1982.
+
+   [DSN]     Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format
+             for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3464, January 2003.
+
+5. Security Considerations
+
+   This document describes a status code system with increased
+   precision.  Use of these status codes may disclose additional
+   information about how an internal mail system is implemented beyond
+   that currently available.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                    [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3463           Enhanced Mail System Status Codes        January 2003
+
+
+Appendix A - Collected Status Codes
+
+         X.1.0     Other address status
+         X.1.1     Bad destination mailbox address
+         X.1.2     Bad destination system address
+         X.1.3     Bad destination mailbox address syntax
+         X.1.4     Destination mailbox address ambiguous
+         X.1.5     Destination mailbox address valid
+         X.1.6     Mailbox has moved
+         X.1.7     Bad sender's mailbox address syntax
+         X.1.8     Bad sender's system address
+
+         X.2.0     Other or undefined mailbox status
+         X.2.1     Mailbox disabled, not accepting messages
+         X.2.2     Mailbox full
+         X.2.3     Message length exceeds administrative limit.
+         X.2.4     Mailing list expansion problem
+
+         X.3.0     Other or undefined mail system status
+         X.3.1     Mail system full
+         X.3.2     System not accepting network messages
+         X.3.3     System not capable of selected features
+         X.3.4     Message too big for system
+
+         X.4.0     Other or undefined network or routing status
+         X.4.1     No answer from host
+         X.4.2     Bad connection
+         X.4.3     Routing server failure
+         X.4.4     Unable to route
+         X.4.5     Network congestion
+         X.4.6     Routing loop detected
+         X.4.7     Delivery time expired
+
+         X.5.0     Other or undefined protocol status
+         X.5.1     Invalid command
+         X.5.2     Syntax error
+         X.5.3     Too many recipients
+         X.5.4     Invalid command arguments
+         X.5.5     Wrong protocol version
+
+         X.6.0     Other or undefined media error
+         X.6.1     Media not supported
+         X.6.2     Conversion required and prohibited
+         X.6.3     Conversion required but not supported
+         X.6.4     Conversion with loss performed
+         X.6.5     Conversion failed
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                    [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3463           Enhanced Mail System Status Codes        January 2003
+
+
+         X.7.0     Other or undefined security status
+         X.7.1     Delivery not authorized, message refused
+         X.7.2     Mailing list expansion prohibited
+         X.7.3     Security conversion required but not possible
+         X.7.4     Security features not supported
+         X.7.5     Cryptographic failure
+         X.7.6     Cryptographic algorithm not supported
+         X.7.7     Message integrity failure
+
+Appendix B - Changes from RFC1893
+
+   Changed Authors contact information.
+
+   Updated required standards boilerplate.
+
+   Edited the text to make it spell-checker and grammar checker
+   compliant.
+
+   Modified the text describing the persistent transient failure to more
+   closely reflect current practice and understanding.
+
+   Eliminated the restriction on the X.4.7 codes limiting them to
+   persistent transient errors.
+
+Author's Address
+
+   Gregory M. Vaudreuil
+   Lucent Technologies
+   7291 Williamson Rd
+   Dallas, Tx. 75214
+
+   Phone: +1 214 823 9325
+   EMail: GregV@ieee.org
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Vaudreuil                   Standards Track                    [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3463           Enhanced Mail System Status Codes        January 2003
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  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 16]
+