From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc822.txt | 2901 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 2901 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc822.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc822.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc822.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc822.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..35b09a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc822.txt @@ -0,0 +1,2901 @@ + + + + + + + RFC # 822 + + Obsoletes: RFC #733 (NIC #41952) + + + + + + + + + + + + + STANDARD FOR THE FORMAT OF + + ARPA INTERNET TEXT MESSAGES + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 + + + + + + + Revised by + + David H. Crocker + + + Dept. of Electrical Engineering + University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19711 + Network: DCrocker @ UDel-Relay + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + TABLE OF CONTENTS + + + PREFACE .................................................... ii + + 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1 + + 1.1. Scope ............................................ 1 + 1.2. Communication Framework .......................... 2 + + 2. NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS ................................. 3 + + 3. LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF MESSAGES ........................... 5 + + 3.1. General Description .............................. 5 + 3.2. Header Field Definitions ......................... 9 + 3.3. Lexical Tokens ................................... 10 + 3.4. Clarifications ................................... 11 + + 4. MESSAGE SPECIFICATION .................................. 17 + + 4.1. Syntax ........................................... 17 + 4.2. Forwarding ....................................... 19 + 4.3. Trace Fields ..................................... 20 + 4.4. Originator Fields ................................ 21 + 4.5. Receiver Fields .................................. 23 + 4.6. Reference Fields ................................. 23 + 4.7. Other Fields ..................................... 24 + + 5. DATE AND TIME SPECIFICATION ............................ 26 + + 5.1. Syntax ........................................... 26 + 5.2. Semantics ........................................ 26 + + 6. ADDRESS SPECIFICATION .................................. 27 + + 6.1. Syntax ........................................... 27 + 6.2. Semantics ........................................ 27 + 6.3. Reserved Address ................................. 33 + + 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................... 34 + + + APPENDIX + + A. EXAMPLES ............................................... 36 + B. SIMPLE FIELD PARSING ................................... 40 + C. DIFFERENCES FROM RFC #733 .............................. 41 + D. ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF SYNTAX RULES ................... 44 + + + August 13, 1982 - i - RFC #822 + + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + PREFACE + + + By 1977, the Arpanet employed several informal standards for + the text messages (mail) sent among its host computers. It was + felt necessary to codify these practices and provide for those + features that seemed imminent. The result of that effort was + Request for Comments (RFC) #733, "Standard for the Format of ARPA + Network Text Message", by Crocker, Vittal, Pogran, and Henderson. + The specification attempted to avoid major changes in existing + software, while permitting several new features. + + This document revises the specifications in RFC #733, in + order to serve the needs of the larger and more complex ARPA + Internet. Some of RFC #733's features failed to gain adequate + acceptance. In order to simplify the standard and the software + that follows it, these features have been removed. A different + addressing scheme is used, to handle the case of inter-network + mail; and the concept of re-transmission has been introduced. + + This specification is intended for use in the ARPA Internet. + However, an attempt has been made to free it of any dependence on + that environment, so that it can be applied to other network text + message systems. + + The specification of RFC #733 took place over the course of + one year, using the ARPANET mail environment, itself, to provide + an on-going forum for discussing the capabilities to be included. + More than twenty individuals, from across the country, partici- + pated in the original discussion. The development of this + revised specification has, similarly, utilized network mail-based + group discussion. Both specification efforts greatly benefited + from the comments and ideas of the participants. + + The syntax of the standard, in RFC #733, was originally + specified in the Backus-Naur Form (BNF) meta-language. Ken L. + Harrenstien, of SRI International, was responsible for re-coding + the BNF into an augmented BNF that makes the representation + smaller and easier to understand. + + + + + + + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - ii - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + 1. INTRODUCTION + + 1.1. SCOPE + + This standard specifies a syntax for text messages that are + sent among computer users, within the framework of "electronic + mail". The standard supersedes the one specified in ARPANET + Request for Comments #733, "Standard for the Format of ARPA Net- + work Text Messages". + + In this context, messages are viewed as having an envelope + and contents. The envelope contains whatever information is + needed to accomplish transmission and delivery. The contents + compose the object to be delivered to the recipient. This stan- + dard applies only to the format and some of the semantics of mes- + sage contents. It contains no specification of the information + in the envelope. + + However, some message systems may use information from the + contents to create the envelope. It is intended that this stan- + dard facilitate the acquisition of such information by programs. + + Some message systems may store messages in formats that + differ from the one specified in this standard. This specifica- + tion is intended strictly as a definition of what message content + format is to be passed BETWEEN hosts. + + Note: This standard is NOT intended to dictate the internal for- + mats used by sites, the specific message system features + that they are expected to support, or any of the charac- + teristics of user interface programs that create or read + messages. + + A distinction should be made between what the specification + REQUIRES and what it ALLOWS. Messages can be made complex and + rich with formally-structured components of information or can be + kept small and simple, with a minimum of such information. Also, + the standard simplifies the interpretation of differing visual + formats in messages; only the visual aspect of a message is + affected and not the interpretation of information within it. + Implementors may choose to retain such visual distinctions. + + The formal definition is divided into four levels. The bot- + tom level describes the meta-notation used in this document. The + second level describes basic lexical analyzers that feed tokens + to higher-level parsers. Next is an overall specification for + messages; it permits distinguishing individual fields. Finally, + there is definition of the contents of several structured fields. + + + + August 13, 1982 - 1 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + 1.2. COMMUNICATION FRAMEWORK + + Messages consist of lines of text. No special provisions + are made for encoding drawings, facsimile, speech, or structured + text. No significant consideration has been given to questions + of data compression or to transmission and storage efficiency, + and the standard tends to be free with the number of bits con- + sumed. For example, field names are specified as free text, + rather than special terse codes. + + A general "memo" framework is used. That is, a message con- + sists of some information in a rigid format, followed by the main + part of the message, with a format that is not specified in this + document. The syntax of several fields of the rigidly-formated + ("headers") section is defined in this specification; some of + these fields must be included in all messages. + + The syntax that distinguishes between header fields is + specified separately from the internal syntax for particular + fields. This separation is intended to allow simple parsers to + operate on the general structure of messages, without concern for + the detailed structure of individual header fields. Appendix B + is provided to facilitate construction of these parsers. + + In addition to the fields specified in this document, it is + expected that other fields will gain common use. As necessary, + the specifications for these "extension-fields" will be published + through the same mechanism used to publish this document. Users + may also wish to extend the set of fields that they use + privately. Such "user-defined fields" are permitted. + + The framework severely constrains document tone and appear- + ance and is primarily useful for most intra-organization communi- + cations and well-structured inter-organization communication. + It also can be used for some types of inter-process communica- + tion, such as simple file transfer and remote job entry. A more + robust framework might allow for multi-font, multi-color, multi- + dimension encoding of information. A less robust one, as is + present in most single-machine message systems, would more + severely constrain the ability to add fields and the decision to + include specific fields. In contrast with paper-based communica- + tion, it is interesting to note that the RECEIVER of a message + can exercise an extraordinary amount of control over the + message's appearance. The amount of actual control available to + message receivers is contingent upon the capabilities of their + individual message systems. + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 2 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + 2. NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS + + This specification uses an augmented Backus-Naur Form (BNF) + notation. The differences from standard BNF involve naming rules + and indicating repetition and "local" alternatives. + + 2.1. RULE NAMING + + Angle brackets ("<", ">") are not used, in general. The + name of a rule is simply the name itself, rather than "". + Quotation-marks enclose literal text (which may be upper and/or + lower case). Certain basic rules are in uppercase, such as + SPACE, TAB, CRLF, DIGIT, ALPHA, etc. Angle brackets are used in + rule definitions, and in the rest of this document, whenever + their presence will facilitate discerning the use of rule names. + + 2.2. RULE1 / RULE2: ALTERNATIVES + + Elements separated by slash ("/") are alternatives. There- + fore "foo / bar" will accept foo or bar. + + 2.3. (RULE1 RULE2): LOCAL ALTERNATIVES + + Elements enclosed in parentheses are treated as a single + element. Thus, "(elem (foo / bar) elem)" allows the token + sequences "elem foo elem" and "elem bar elem". + + 2.4. *RULE: REPETITION + + The character "*" preceding an element indicates repetition. + The full form is: + + *element + + indicating at least and at most occurrences of element. + Default values are 0 and infinity so that "*(element)" allows any + number, including zero; "1*element" requires at least one; and + "1*2element" allows one or two. + + 2.5. [RULE]: OPTIONAL + + Square brackets enclose optional elements; "[foo bar]" is + equivalent to "*1(foo bar)". + + 2.6. NRULE: SPECIFIC REPETITION + + "(element)" is equivalent to "*(element)"; that is, + exactly occurrences of (element). Thus 2DIGIT is a 2-digit + number, and 3ALPHA is a string of three alphabetic characters. + + + August 13, 1982 - 3 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + 2.7. #RULE: LISTS + + A construct "#" is defined, similar to "*", as follows: + + #element + + indicating at least and at most elements, each separated + by one or more commas (","). This makes the usual form of lists + very easy; a rule such as '(element *("," element))' can be shown + as "1#element". Wherever this construct is used, null elements + are allowed, but do not contribute to the count of elements + present. That is, "(element),,(element)" is permitted, but + counts as only two elements. Therefore, where at least one ele- + ment is required, at least one non-null element must be present. + Default values are 0 and infinity so that "#(element)" allows any + number, including zero; "1#element" requires at least one; and + "1#2element" allows one or two. + + 2.8. ; COMMENTS + + A semi-colon, set off some distance to the right of rule + text, starts a comment that continues to the end of line. This + is a simple way of including useful notes in parallel with the + specifications. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 4 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + 3. LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF MESSAGES + + 3.1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION + + A message consists of header fields and, optionally, a body. + The body is simply a sequence of lines containing ASCII charac- + ters. It is separated from the headers by a null line (i.e., a + line with nothing preceding the CRLF). + + 3.1.1. LONG HEADER FIELDS + + Each header field can be viewed as a single, logical line of + ASCII characters, comprising a field-name and a field-body. + For convenience, the field-body portion of this conceptual + entity can be split into a multiple-line representation; this + is called "folding". The general rule is that wherever there + may be linear-white-space (NOT simply LWSP-chars), a CRLF + immediately followed by AT LEAST one LWSP-char may instead be + inserted. Thus, the single line + + To: "Joe & J. Harvey" , JJV @ BBN + + can be represented as: + + To: "Joe & J. Harvey" , + JJV@BBN + + and + + To: "Joe & J. Harvey" + , JJV + @BBN + + and + + To: "Joe & + J. Harvey" , JJV @ BBN + + The process of moving from this folded multiple-line + representation of a header field to its single line represen- + tation is called "unfolding". Unfolding is accomplished by + regarding CRLF immediately followed by a LWSP-char as + equivalent to the LWSP-char. + + Note: While the standard permits folding wherever linear- + white-space is permitted, it is recommended that struc- + tured fields, such as those containing addresses, limit + folding to higher-level syntactic breaks. For address + fields, it is recommended that such folding occur + + + August 13, 1982 - 5 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + between addresses, after the separating comma. + + 3.1.2. STRUCTURE OF HEADER FIELDS + + Once a field has been unfolded, it may be viewed as being com- + posed of a field-name followed by a colon (":"), followed by a + field-body, and terminated by a carriage-return/line-feed. + The field-name must be composed of printable ASCII characters + (i.e., characters that have values between 33. and 126., + decimal, except colon). The field-body may be composed of any + ASCII characters, except CR or LF. (While CR and/or LF may be + present in the actual text, they are removed by the action of + unfolding the field.) + + Certain field-bodies of headers may be interpreted according + to an internal syntax that some systems may wish to parse. + These fields are called "structured fields". Examples + include fields containing dates and addresses. Other fields, + such as "Subject" and "Comments", are regarded simply as + strings of text. + + Note: Any field which has a field-body that is defined as + other than simply is to be treated as a struc- + tured field. + + Field-names, unstructured field bodies and structured + field bodies each are scanned by their own, independent + "lexical" analyzers. + + 3.1.3. UNSTRUCTURED FIELD BODIES + + For some fields, such as "Subject" and "Comments", no struc- + turing is assumed, and they are treated simply as s, as + in the message body. Rules of folding apply to these fields, + so that such field bodies which occupy several lines must + therefore have the second and successive lines indented by at + least one LWSP-char. + + 3.1.4. STRUCTURED FIELD BODIES + + To aid in the creation and reading of structured fields, the + free insertion of linear-white-space (which permits folding + by inclusion of CRLFs) is allowed between lexical tokens. + Rather than obscuring the syntax specifications for these + structured fields with explicit syntax for this linear-white- + space, the existence of another "lexical" analyzer is assumed. + This analyzer does not apply for unstructured field bodies + that are simply strings of text, as described above. The + analyzer provides an interpretation of the unfolded text + + + August 13, 1982 - 6 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + composing the body of the field as a sequence of lexical sym- + bols. + + These symbols are: + + - individual special characters + - quoted-strings + - domain-literals + - comments + - atoms + + The first four of these symbols are self-delimiting. Atoms + are not; they are delimited by the self-delimiting symbols and + by linear-white-space. For the purposes of regenerating + sequences of atoms and quoted-strings, exactly one SPACE is + assumed to exist, and should be used, between them. (Also, in + the "Clarifications" section on "White Space", below, note the + rules about treatment of multiple contiguous LWSP-chars.) + + So, for example, the folded body of an address field + + ":sysmail"@ Some-Group. Some-Org, + Muhammed.(I am the greatest) Ali @(the)Vegas.WBA + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 7 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + is analyzed into the following lexical symbols and types: + + :sysmail quoted string + @ special + Some-Group atom + . special + Some-Org atom + , special + Muhammed atom + . special + (I am the greatest) comment + Ali atom + @ atom + (the) comment + Vegas atom + . special + WBA atom + + The canonical representations for the data in these addresses + are the following strings: + + ":sysmail"@Some-Group.Some-Org + + and + + Muhammed.Ali@Vegas.WBA + + Note: For purposes of display, and when passing such struc- + tured information to other systems, such as mail proto- + col services, there must be NO linear-white-space + between s that are separated by period (".") or + at-sign ("@") and exactly one SPACE between all other + s. Also, headers should be in a folded form. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 8 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + 3.2. HEADER FIELD DEFINITIONS + + These rules show a field meta-syntax, without regard for the + particular type or internal syntax. Their purpose is to permit + detection of fields; also, they present to higher-level parsers + an image of each field as fitting on one line. + + field = field-name ":" [ field-body ] CRLF + + field-name = 1* + + field-body = field-body-contents + [CRLF LWSP-char field-body] + + field-body-contents = + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 9 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + 3.3. LEXICAL TOKENS + + The following rules are used to define an underlying lexical + analyzer, which feeds tokens to higher level parsers. See the + ANSI references, in the Bibliography. + + ; ( Octal, Decimal.) + CHAR = ; ( 0-177, 0.-127.) + ALPHA = + ; (101-132, 65.- 90.) + ; (141-172, 97.-122.) + DIGIT = ; ( 60- 71, 48.- 57.) + CTL = ; ( 177, 127.) + CR = ; ( 15, 13.) + LF = ; ( 12, 10.) + SPACE = ; ( 40, 32.) + HTAB = ; ( 11, 9.) + <"> = ; ( 42, 34.) + CRLF = CR LF + + LWSP-char = SPACE / HTAB ; semantics = SPACE + + linear-white-space = 1*([CRLF] LWSP-char) ; semantics = SPACE + ; CRLF => folding + + specials = "(" / ")" / "<" / ">" / "@" ; Must be in quoted- + / "," / ";" / ":" / "\" / <"> ; string, to use + / "." / "[" / "]" ; within a word. + + delimiters = specials / linear-white-space / comment + + text = atoms, specials, + CR & bare LF, but NOT ; comments and + including CRLF> ; quoted-strings are + ; NOT recognized. + + atom = 1* + + quoted-string = <"> *(qtext/quoted-pair) <">; Regular qtext or + ; quoted chars. + + qtext = , ; => may be folded + "\" & CR, and including + linear-white-space> + + domain-literal = "[" *(dtext / quoted-pair) "]" + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 10 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + dtext = may be folded + "]", "\" & CR, & including + linear-white-space> + + comment = "(" *(ctext / quoted-pair / comment) ")" + + ctext = may be folded + ")", "\" & CR, & including + linear-white-space> + + quoted-pair = "\" CHAR ; may quote any char + + phrase = 1*word ; Sequence of words + + word = atom / quoted-string + + + 3.4. CLARIFICATIONS + + 3.4.1. QUOTING + + Some characters are reserved for special interpretation, such + as delimiting lexical tokens. To permit use of these charac- + ters as uninterpreted data, a quoting mechanism is provided. + To quote a character, precede it with a backslash ("\"). + + This mechanism is not fully general. Characters may be quoted + only within a subset of the lexical constructs. In particu- + lar, quoting is limited to use within: + + - quoted-string + - domain-literal + - comment + + Within these constructs, quoting is REQUIRED for CR and "\" + and for the character(s) that delimit the token (e.g., "(" and + ")" for a comment). However, quoting is PERMITTED for any + character. + + Note: In particular, quoting is NOT permitted within atoms. + For example when the local-part of an addr-spec must + contain a special character, a quoted string must be + used. Therefore, a specification such as: + + Full\ Name@Domain + + is not legal and must be specified as: + + "Full Name"@Domain + + + August 13, 1982 - 11 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + 3.4.2. WHITE SPACE + + Note: In structured field bodies, multiple linear space ASCII + characters (namely HTABs and SPACEs) are treated as + single spaces and may freely surround any symbol. In + all header fields, the only place in which at least one + LWSP-char is REQUIRED is at the beginning of continua- + tion lines in a folded field. + + When passing text to processes that do not interpret text + according to this standard (e.g., mail protocol servers), then + NO linear-white-space characters should occur between a period + (".") or at-sign ("@") and a . Exactly ONE SPACE should + be used in place of arbitrary linear-white-space and comment + sequences. + + Note: Within systems conforming to this standard, wherever a + member of the list of delimiters is allowed, LWSP-chars + may also occur before and/or after it. + + Writers of mail-sending (i.e., header-generating) programs + should realize that there is no network-wide definition of the + effect of ASCII HT (horizontal-tab) characters on the appear- + ance of text at another network host; therefore, the use of + tabs in message headers, though permitted, is discouraged. + + 3.4.3. COMMENTS + + A comment is a set of ASCII characters, which is enclosed in + matching parentheses and which is not within a quoted-string + The comment construct permits message originators to add text + which will be useful for human readers, but which will be + ignored by the formal semantics. Comments should be retained + while the message is subject to interpretation according to + this standard. However, comments must NOT be included in + other cases, such as during protocol exchanges with mail + servers. + + Comments nest, so that if an unquoted left parenthesis occurs + in a comment string, there must also be a matching right + parenthesis. When a comment acts as the delimiter between a + sequence of two lexical symbols, such as two atoms, it is lex- + ically equivalent with a single SPACE, for the purposes of + regenerating the sequence, such as when passing the sequence + onto a mail protocol server. Comments are detected as such + only within field-bodies of structured fields. + + If a comment is to be "folded" onto multiple lines, then the + syntax for folding must be adhered to. (See the "Lexical + + + August 13, 1982 - 12 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + Analysis of Messages" section on "Folding Long Header Fields" + above, and the section on "Case Independence" below.) Note + that the official semantics therefore do not "see" any + unquoted CRLFs that are in comments, although particular pars- + ing programs may wish to note their presence. For these pro- + grams, it would be reasonable to interpret a "CRLF LWSP-char" + as being a CRLF that is part of the comment; i.e., the CRLF is + kept and the LWSP-char is discarded. Quoted CRLFs (i.e., a + backslash followed by a CR followed by a LF) still must be + followed by at least one LWSP-char. + + 3.4.4. DELIMITING AND QUOTING CHARACTERS + + The quote character (backslash) and characters that delimit + syntactic units are not, generally, to be taken as data that + are part of the delimited or quoted unit(s). In particular, + the quotation-marks that define a quoted-string, the + parentheses that define a comment and the backslash that + quotes a following character are NOT part of the quoted- + string, comment or quoted character. A quotation-mark that is + to be part of a quoted-string, a parenthesis that is to be + part of a comment and a backslash that is to be part of either + must each be preceded by the quote-character backslash ("\"). + Note that the syntax allows any character to be quoted within + a quoted-string or comment; however only certain characters + MUST be quoted to be included as data. These characters are + the ones that are not part of the alternate text group (i.e., + ctext or qtext). + + The one exception to this rule is that a single SPACE is + assumed to exist between contiguous words in a phrase, and + this interpretation is independent of the actual number of + LWSP-chars that the creator places between the words. To + include more than one SPACE, the creator must make the LWSP- + chars be part of a quoted-string. + + Quotation marks that delimit a quoted string and backslashes + that quote the following character should NOT accompany the + quoted-string when the string is passed to processes that do + not interpret data according to this specification (e.g., mail + protocol servers). + + 3.4.5. QUOTED-STRINGS + + Where permitted (i.e., in words in structured fields) quoted- + strings are treated as a single symbol. That is, a quoted- + string is equivalent to an atom, syntactically. If a quoted- + string is to be "folded" onto multiple lines, then the syntax + for folding must be adhered to. (See the "Lexical Analysis of + + + August 13, 1982 - 13 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + Messages" section on "Folding Long Header Fields" above, and + the section on "Case Independence" below.) Therefore, the + official semantics do not "see" any bare CRLFs that are in + quoted-strings; however particular parsing programs may wish + to note their presence. For such programs, it would be rea- + sonable to interpret a "CRLF LWSP-char" as being a CRLF which + is part of the quoted-string; i.e., the CRLF is kept and the + LWSP-char is discarded. Quoted CRLFs (i.e., a backslash fol- + lowed by a CR followed by a LF) are also subject to rules of + folding, but the presence of the quoting character (backslash) + explicitly indicates that the CRLF is data to the quoted + string. Stripping off the first following LWSP-char is also + appropriate when parsing quoted CRLFs. + + 3.4.6. BRACKETING CHARACTERS + + There is one type of bracket which must occur in matched pairs + and may have pairs nested within each other: + + o Parentheses ("(" and ")") are used to indicate com- + ments. + + There are three types of brackets which must occur in matched + pairs, and which may NOT be nested: + + o Colon/semi-colon (":" and ";") are used in address + specifications to indicate that the included list of + addresses are to be treated as a group. + + o Angle brackets ("<" and ">") are generally used to + indicate the presence of a one machine-usable refer- + ence (e.g., delimiting mailboxes), possibly including + source-routing to the machine. + + o Square brackets ("[" and "]") are used to indicate the + presence of a domain-literal, which the appropriate + name-domain is to use directly, bypassing normal + name-resolution mechanisms. + + 3.4.7. CASE INDEPENDENCE + + Except as noted, alphabetic strings may be represented in any + combination of upper and lower case. The only syntactic units + + + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 14 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + which requires preservation of case information are: + + - text + - qtext + - dtext + - ctext + - quoted-pair + - local-part, except "Postmaster" + + When matching any other syntactic unit, case is to be ignored. + For example, the field-names "From", "FROM", "from", and even + "FroM" are semantically equal and should all be treated ident- + ically. + + When generating these units, any mix of upper and lower case + alphabetic characters may be used. The case shown in this + specification is suggested for message-creating processes. + + Note: The reserved local-part address unit, "Postmaster", is + an exception. When the value "Postmaster" is being + interpreted, it must be accepted in any mixture of + case, including "POSTMASTER", and "postmaster". + + 3.4.8. FOLDING LONG HEADER FIELDS + + Each header field may be represented on exactly one line con- + sisting of the name of the field and its body, and terminated + by a CRLF; this is what the parser sees. For readability, the + field-body portion of long header fields may be "folded" onto + multiple lines of the actual field. "Long" is commonly inter- + preted to mean greater than 65 or 72 characters. The former + length serves as a limit, when the message is to be viewed on + most simple terminals which use simple display software; how- + ever, the limit is not imposed by this standard. + + Note: Some display software often can selectively fold lines, + to suit the display terminal. In such cases, sender- + provided folding can interfere with the display + software. + + 3.4.9. BACKSPACE CHARACTERS + + ASCII BS characters (Backspace, decimal 8) may be included in + texts and quoted-strings to effect overstriking. However, any + use of backspaces which effects an overstrike to the left of + the beginning of the text or quoted-string is prohibited. + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 15 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + 3.4.10. NETWORK-SPECIFIC TRANSFORMATIONS + + During transmission through heterogeneous networks, it may be + necessary to force data to conform to a network's local con- + ventions. For example, it may be required that a CR be fol- + lowed either by LF, making a CRLF, or by , if the CR is + to stand alone). Such transformations are reversed, when the + message exits that network. + + When crossing network boundaries, the message should be + treated as passing through two modules. It will enter the + first module containing whatever network-specific transforma- + tions that were necessary to permit migration through the + "current" network. It then passes through the modules: + + o Transformation Reversal + + The "current" network's idiosyncracies are removed and + the message is returned to the canonical form speci- + fied in this standard. + + o Transformation + + The "next" network's local idiosyncracies are imposed + on the message. + + ------------------ + From ==> | Remove Net-A | + Net-A | idiosyncracies | + ------------------ + || + \/ + Conformance + with standard + || + \/ + ------------------ + | Impose Net-B | ==> To + | idiosyncracies | Net-B + ------------------ + + + + + + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 16 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + 4. MESSAGE SPECIFICATION + + 4.1. SYNTAX + + Note: Due to an artifact of the notational conventions, the syn- + tax indicates that, when present, some fields, must be in + a particular order. Header fields are NOT required to + occur in any particular order, except that the message + body must occur AFTER the headers. It is recommended + that, if present, headers be sent in the order "Return- + Path", "Received", "Date", "From", "Subject", "Sender", + "To", "cc", etc. + + This specification permits multiple occurrences of most + fields. Except as noted, their interpretation is not + specified here, and their use is discouraged. + + The following syntax for the bodies of various fields should + be thought of as describing each field body as a single long + string (or line). The "Lexical Analysis of Message" section on + "Long Header Fields", above, indicates how such long strings can + be represented on more than one line in the actual transmitted + message. + + message = fields *( CRLF *text ) ; Everything after + ; first null line + ; is message body + + fields = dates ; Creation time, + source ; author id & one + 1*destination ; address required + *optional-field ; others optional + + source = [ trace ] ; net traversals + originator ; original mail + [ resent ] ; forwarded + + trace = return ; path to sender + 1*received ; receipt tags + + return = "Return-path" ":" route-addr ; return address + + received = "Received" ":" ; one per relay + ["from" domain] ; sending host + ["by" domain] ; receiving host + ["via" atom] ; physical path + *("with" atom) ; link/mail protocol + ["id" msg-id] ; receiver msg id + ["for" addr-spec] ; initial form + + + August 13, 1982 - 17 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + ";" date-time ; time received + + originator = authentic ; authenticated addr + [ "Reply-To" ":" 1#address] ) + + authentic = "From" ":" mailbox ; Single author + / ( "Sender" ":" mailbox ; Actual submittor + "From" ":" 1#mailbox) ; Multiple authors + ; or not sender + + resent = resent-authentic + [ "Resent-Reply-To" ":" 1#address] ) + + resent-authentic = + = "Resent-From" ":" mailbox + / ( "Resent-Sender" ":" mailbox + "Resent-From" ":" 1#mailbox ) + + dates = orig-date ; Original + [ resent-date ] ; Forwarded + + orig-date = "Date" ":" date-time + + resent-date = "Resent-Date" ":" date-time + + destination = "To" ":" 1#address ; Primary + / "Resent-To" ":" 1#address + / "cc" ":" 1#address ; Secondary + / "Resent-cc" ":" 1#address + / "bcc" ":" #address ; Blind carbon + / "Resent-bcc" ":" #address + + optional-field = + / "Message-ID" ":" msg-id + / "Resent-Message-ID" ":" msg-id + / "In-Reply-To" ":" *(phrase / msg-id) + / "References" ":" *(phrase / msg-id) + / "Keywords" ":" #phrase + / "Subject" ":" *text + / "Comments" ":" *text + / "Encrypted" ":" 1#2word + / extension-field ; To be defined + / user-defined-field ; May be pre-empted + + msg-id = "<" addr-spec ">" ; Unique message id + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 18 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + extension-field = + + + user-defined-field = + + + 4.2. FORWARDING + + Some systems permit mail recipients to forward a message, + retaining the original headers, by adding some new fields. This + standard supports such a service, through the "Resent-" prefix to + field names. + + Whenever the string "Resent-" begins a field name, the field + has the same semantics as a field whose name does not have the + prefix. However, the message is assumed to have been forwarded + by an original recipient who attached the "Resent-" field. This + new field is treated as being more recent than the equivalent, + original field. For example, the "Resent-From", indicates the + person that forwarded the message, whereas the "From" field indi- + cates the original author. + + Use of such precedence information depends upon partici- + pants' communication needs. For example, this standard does not + dictate when a "Resent-From:" address should receive replies, in + lieu of sending them to the "From:" address. + + Note: In general, the "Resent-" fields should be treated as con- + taining a set of information that is independent of the + set of original fields. Information for one set should + not automatically be taken from the other. The interpre- + tation of multiple "Resent-" fields, of the same type, is + undefined. + + In the remainder of this specification, occurrence of legal + "Resent-" fields are treated identically with the occurrence of + + + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 19 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + fields whose names do not contain this prefix. + + 4.3. TRACE FIELDS + + Trace information is used to provide an audit trail of mes- + sage handling. In addition, it indicates a route back to the + sender of the message. + + The list of known "via" and "with" values are registered + with the Network Information Center, SRI International, Menlo + Park, California. + + 4.3.1. RETURN-PATH + + This field is added by the final transport system that + delivers the message to its recipient. The field is intended + to contain definitive information about the address and route + back to the message's originator. + + Note: The "Reply-To" field is added by the originator and + serves to direct replies, whereas the "Return-Path" + field is used to identify a path back to the origina- + tor. + + While the syntax indicates that a route specification is + optional, every attempt should be made to provide that infor- + mation in this field. + + 4.3.2. RECEIVED + + A copy of this field is added by each transport service that + relays the message. The information in the field can be quite + useful for tracing transport problems. + + The names of the sending and receiving hosts and time-of- + receipt may be specified. The "via" parameter may be used, to + indicate what physical mechanism the message was sent over, + such as Arpanet or Phonenet, and the "with" parameter may be + used to indicate the mail-, or connection-, level protocol + that was used, such as the SMTP mail protocol, or X.25 tran- + sport protocol. + + Note: Several "with" parameters may be included, to fully + specify the set of protocols that were used. + + Some transport services queue mail; the internal message iden- + tifier that is assigned to the message may be noted, using the + "id" parameter. When the sending host uses a destination + address specification that the receiving host reinterprets, by + + + August 13, 1982 - 20 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + expansion or transformation, the receiving host may wish to + record the original specification, using the "for" parameter. + For example, when a copy of mail is sent to the member of a + distribution list, this parameter may be used to record the + original address that was used to specify the list. + + 4.4. ORIGINATOR FIELDS + + The standard allows only a subset of the combinations possi- + ble with the From, Sender, Reply-To, Resent-From, Resent-Sender, + and Resent-Reply-To fields. The limitation is intentional. + + 4.4.1. FROM / RESENT-FROM + + This field contains the identity of the person(s) who wished + this message to be sent. The message-creation process should + default this field to be a single, authenticated machine + address, indicating the AGENT (person, system or process) + entering the message. If this is not done, the "Sender" field + MUST be present. If the "From" field IS defaulted this way, + the "Sender" field is optional and is redundant with the + "From" field. In all cases, addresses in the "From" field + must be machine-usable (addr-specs) and may not contain named + lists (groups). + + 4.4.2. SENDER / RESENT-SENDER + + This field contains the authenticated identity of the AGENT + (person, system or process) that sends the message. It is + intended for use when the sender is not the author of the mes- + sage, or to indicate who among a group of authors actually + sent the message. If the contents of the "Sender" field would + be completely redundant with the "From" field, then the + "Sender" field need not be present and its use is discouraged + (though still legal). In particular, the "Sender" field MUST + be present if it is NOT the same as the "From" Field. + + The Sender mailbox specification includes a word sequence + which must correspond to a specific agent (i.e., a human user + or a computer program) rather than a standard address. This + indicates the expectation that the field will identify the + single AGENT (person, system, or process) responsible for + sending the mail and not simply include the name of a mailbox + from which the mail was sent. For example in the case of a + shared login name, the name, by itself, would not be adequate. + The local-part address unit, which refers to this agent, is + expected to be a computer system term, and not (for example) a + generalized person reference which can be used outside the + network text message context. + + + August 13, 1982 - 21 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + Since the critical function served by the "Sender" field is + identification of the agent responsible for sending mail and + since computer programs cannot be held accountable for their + behavior, it is strongly recommended that when a computer pro- + gram generates a message, the HUMAN who is responsible for + that program be referenced as part of the "Sender" field mail- + box specification. + + 4.4.3. REPLY-TO / RESENT-REPLY-TO + + This field provides a general mechanism for indicating any + mailbox(es) to which responses are to be sent. Three typical + uses for this feature can be distinguished. In the first + case, the author(s) may not have regular machine-based mail- + boxes and therefore wish(es) to indicate an alternate machine + address. In the second case, an author may wish additional + persons to be made aware of, or responsible for, replies. A + somewhat different use may be of some help to "text message + teleconferencing" groups equipped with automatic distribution + services: include the address of that service in the "Reply- + To" field of all messages submitted to the teleconference; + then participants can "reply" to conference submissions to + guarantee the correct distribution of any submission of their + own. + + Note: The "Return-Path" field is added by the mail transport + service, at the time of final deliver. It is intended + to identify a path back to the orginator of the mes- + sage. The "Reply-To" field is added by the message + originator and is intended to direct replies. + + 4.4.4. AUTOMATIC USE OF FROM / SENDER / REPLY-TO + + For systems which automatically generate address lists for + replies to messages, the following recommendations are made: + + o The "Sender" field mailbox should be sent notices of + any problems in transport or delivery of the original + messages. If there is no "Sender" field, then the + "From" field mailbox should be used. + + o The "Sender" field mailbox should NEVER be used + automatically, in a recipient's reply message. + + o If the "Reply-To" field exists, then the reply should + go to the addresses indicated in that field and not to + the address(es) indicated in the "From" field. + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 22 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + o If there is a "From" field, but no "Reply-To" field, + the reply should be sent to the address(es) indicated + in the "From" field. + + Sometimes, a recipient may actually wish to communicate with + the person that initiated the message transfer. In such + cases, it is reasonable to use the "Sender" address. + + This recommendation is intended only for automated use of + originator-fields and is not intended to suggest that replies + may not also be sent to other recipients of messages. It is + up to the respective mail-handling programs to decide what + additional facilities will be provided. + + Examples are provided in Appendix A. + + 4.5. RECEIVER FIELDS + + 4.5.1. TO / RESENT-TO + + This field contains the identity of the primary recipients of + the message. + + 4.5.2. CC / RESENT-CC + + This field contains the identity of the secondary (informa- + tional) recipients of the message. + + 4.5.3. BCC / RESENT-BCC + + This field contains the identity of additional recipients of + the message. The contents of this field are not included in + copies of the message sent to the primary and secondary reci- + pients. Some systems may choose to include the text of the + "Bcc" field only in the author(s)'s copy, while others may + also include it in the text sent to all those indicated in the + "Bcc" list. + + 4.6. REFERENCE FIELDS + + 4.6.1. MESSAGE-ID / RESENT-MESSAGE-ID + + This field contains a unique identifier (the local-part + address unit) which refers to THIS version of THIS message. + The uniqueness of the message identifier is guaranteed by the + host which generates it. This identifier is intended to be + machine readable and not necessarily meaningful to humans. A + message identifier pertains to exactly one instantiation of a + particular message; subsequent revisions to the message should + + + August 13, 1982 - 23 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + each receive new message identifiers. + + 4.6.2. IN-REPLY-TO + + The contents of this field identify previous correspon- + dence which this message answers. Note that if message iden- + tifiers are used in this field, they must use the msg-id + specification format. + + 4.6.3. REFERENCES + + The contents of this field identify other correspondence + which this message references. Note that if message identif- + iers are used, they must use the msg-id specification format. + + 4.6.4. KEYWORDS + + This field contains keywords or phrases, separated by + commas. + + 4.7. OTHER FIELDS + + 4.7.1. SUBJECT + + This is intended to provide a summary, or indicate the + nature, of the message. + + 4.7.2. COMMENTS + + Permits adding text comments onto the message without + disturbing the contents of the message's body. + + 4.7.3. ENCRYPTED + + Sometimes, data encryption is used to increase the + privacy of message contents. If the body of a message has + been encrypted, to keep its contents private, the "Encrypted" + field can be used to note the fact and to indicate the nature + of the encryption. The first parameter indicates the + software used to encrypt the body, and the second, optional + is intended to aid the recipient in selecting the + proper decryption key. This code word may be viewed as an + index to a table of keys held by the recipient. + + Note: Unfortunately, headers must contain envelope, as well + as contents, information. Consequently, it is neces- + sary that they remain unencrypted, so that mail tran- + sport services may access them. Since names, + addresses, and "Subject" field contents may contain + + + August 13, 1982 - 24 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + sensitive information, this requirement limits total + message privacy. + + Names of encryption software are registered with the Net- + work Information Center, SRI International, Menlo Park, Cali- + fornia. + + 4.7.4. EXTENSION-FIELD + + A limited number of common fields have been defined in + this document. As network mail requirements dictate, addi- + tional fields may be standardized. To provide user-defined + fields with a measure of safety, in name selection, such + extension-fields will never have names that begin with the + string "X-". + + Names of Extension-fields are registered with the Network + Information Center, SRI International, Menlo Park, California. + + 4.7.5. USER-DEFINED-FIELD + + Individual users of network mail are free to define and + use additional header fields. Such fields must have names + which are not already used in the current specification or in + any definitions of extension-fields, and the overall syntax of + these user-defined-fields must conform to this specification's + rules for delimiting and folding fields. Due to the + extension-field publishing process, the name of a user- + defined-field may be pre-empted + + Note: The prefatory string "X-" will never be used in the + names of Extension-fields. This provides user-defined + fields with a protected set of names. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 25 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + 5. DATE AND TIME SPECIFICATION + + 5.1. SYNTAX + + date-time = [ day "," ] date time ; dd mm yy + ; hh:mm:ss zzz + + day = "Mon" / "Tue" / "Wed" / "Thu" + / "Fri" / "Sat" / "Sun" + + date = 1*2DIGIT month 2DIGIT ; day month year + ; e.g. 20 Jun 82 + + month = "Jan" / "Feb" / "Mar" / "Apr" + / "May" / "Jun" / "Jul" / "Aug" + / "Sep" / "Oct" / "Nov" / "Dec" + + time = hour zone ; ANSI and Military + + hour = 2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT [":" 2DIGIT] + ; 00:00:00 - 23:59:59 + + zone = "UT" / "GMT" ; Universal Time + ; North American : UT + / "EST" / "EDT" ; Eastern: - 5/ - 4 + / "CST" / "CDT" ; Central: - 6/ - 5 + / "MST" / "MDT" ; Mountain: - 7/ - 6 + / "PST" / "PDT" ; Pacific: - 8/ - 7 + / 1ALPHA ; Military: Z = UT; + ; A:-1; (J not used) + ; M:-12; N:+1; Y:+12 + / ( ("+" / "-") 4DIGIT ) ; Local differential + ; hours+min. (HHMM) + + 5.2. SEMANTICS + + If included, day-of-week must be the day implied by the date + specification. + + Time zone may be indicated in several ways. "UT" is Univer- + sal Time (formerly called "Greenwich Mean Time"); "GMT" is per- + mitted as a reference to Universal Time. The military standard + uses a single character for each zone. "Z" is Universal Time. + "A" indicates one hour earlier, and "M" indicates 12 hours ear- + lier; "N" is one hour later, and "Y" is 12 hours later. The + letter "J" is not used. The other remaining two forms are taken + from ANSI standard X3.51-1975. One allows explicit indication of + the amount of offset from UT; the other uses common 3-character + strings for indicating time zones in North America. + + + August 13, 1982 - 26 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + 6. ADDRESS SPECIFICATION + + 6.1. SYNTAX + + address = mailbox ; one addressee + / group ; named list + + group = phrase ":" [#mailbox] ";" + + mailbox = addr-spec ; simple address + / phrase route-addr ; name & addr-spec + + route-addr = "<" [route] addr-spec ">" + + route = 1#("@" domain) ":" ; path-relative + + addr-spec = local-part "@" domain ; global address + + local-part = word *("." word) ; uninterpreted + ; case-preserved + + domain = sub-domain *("." sub-domain) + + sub-domain = domain-ref / domain-literal + + domain-ref = atom ; symbolic reference + + 6.2. SEMANTICS + + A mailbox receives mail. It is a conceptual entity which + does not necessarily pertain to file storage. For example, some + sites may choose to print mail on their line printer and deliver + the output to the addressee's desk. + + A mailbox specification comprises a person, system or pro- + cess name reference, a domain-dependent string, and a name-domain + reference. The name reference is optional and is usually used to + indicate the human name of a recipient. The name-domain refer- + ence specifies a sequence of sub-domains. The domain-dependent + string is uninterpreted, except by the final sub-domain; the rest + of the mail service merely transmits it as a literal string. + + 6.2.1. DOMAINS + + A name-domain is a set of registered (mail) names. A name- + domain specification resolves to a subordinate name-domain + specification or to a terminal domain-dependent string. + Hence, domain specification is extensible, permitting any + number of registration levels. + + + August 13, 1982 - 27 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + Name-domains model a global, logical, hierarchical addressing + scheme. The model is logical, in that an address specifica- + tion is related to name registration and is not necessarily + tied to transmission path. The model's hierarchy is a + directed graph, called an in-tree, such that there is a single + path from the root of the tree to any node in the hierarchy. + If more than one path actually exists, they are considered to + be different addresses. + + The root node is common to all addresses; consequently, it is + not referenced. Its children constitute "top-level" name- + domains. Usually, a service has access to its own full domain + specification and to the names of all top-level name-domains. + + The "top" of the domain addressing hierarchy -- a child of the + root -- is indicated by the right-most field, in a domain + specification. Its child is specified to the left, its child + to the left, and so on. + + Some groups provide formal registration services; these con- + stitute name-domains that are independent logically of + specific machines. In addition, networks and machines impli- + citly compose name-domains, since their membership usually is + registered in name tables. + + In the case of formal registration, an organization implements + a (distributed) data base which provides an address-to-route + mapping service for addresses of the form: + + person@registry.organization + + Note that "organization" is a logical entity, separate from + any particular communication network. + + A mechanism for accessing "organization" is universally avail- + able. That mechanism, in turn, seeks an instantiation of the + registry; its location is not indicated in the address specif- + ication. It is assumed that the system which operates under + the name "organization" knows how to find a subordinate regis- + try. The registry will then use the "person" string to deter- + mine where to send the mail specification. + + The latter, network-oriented case permits simple, direct, + attachment-related address specification, such as: + + user@host.network + + Once the network is accessed, it is expected that a message + will go directly to the host and that the host will resolve + + + August 13, 1982 - 28 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + the user name, placing the message in the user's mailbox. + + 6.2.2. ABBREVIATED DOMAIN SPECIFICATION + + Since any number of levels is possible within the domain + hierarchy, specification of a fully qualified address can + become inconvenient. This standard permits abbreviated domain + specification, in a special case: + + For the address of the sender, call the left-most + sub-domain Level N. In a header address, if all of + the sub-domains above (i.e., to the right of) Level N + are the same as those of the sender, then they do not + have to appear in the specification. Otherwise, the + address must be fully qualified. + + This feature is subject to approval by local sub- + domains. Individual sub-domains may require their + member systems, which originate mail, to provide full + domain specification only. When permitted, abbrevia- + tions may be present only while the message stays + within the sub-domain of the sender. + + Use of this mechanism requires the sender's sub-domain + to reserve the names of all top-level domains, so that + full specifications can be distinguished from abbrevi- + ated specifications. + + For example, if a sender's address is: + + sender@registry-A.registry-1.organization-X + + and one recipient's address is: + + recipient@registry-B.registry-1.organization-X + + and another's is: + + recipient@registry-C.registry-2.organization-X + + then ".registry-1.organization-X" need not be specified in the + the message, but "registry-C.registry-2" DOES have to be + specified. That is, the first two addresses may be abbrevi- + ated, but the third address must be fully specified. + + When a message crosses a domain boundary, all addresses must + be specified in the full format, ending with the top-level + name-domain in the right-most field. It is the responsibility + of mail forwarding services to ensure that addresses conform + + + August 13, 1982 - 29 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + with this requirement. In the case of abbreviated addresses, + the relaying service must make the necessary expansions. It + should be noted that it often is difficult for such a service + to locate all occurrences of address abbreviations. For exam- + ple, it will not be possible to find such abbreviations within + the body of the message. The "Return-Path" field can aid + recipients in recovering from these errors. + + Note: When passing any portion of an addr-spec onto a process + which does not interpret data according to this stan- + dard (e.g., mail protocol servers). There must be NO + LWSP-chars preceding or following the at-sign or any + delimiting period ("."), such as shown in the above + examples, and only ONE SPACE between contiguous + s. + + 6.2.3. DOMAIN TERMS + + A domain-ref must be THE official name of a registry, network, + or host. It is a symbolic reference, within a name sub- + domain. At times, it is necessary to bypass standard mechan- + isms for resolving such references, using more primitive + information, such as a network host address rather than its + associated host name. + + To permit such references, this standard provides the domain- + literal construct. Its contents must conform with the needs + of the sub-domain in which it is interpreted. + + Domain-literals which refer to domains within the ARPA Inter- + net specify 32-bit Internet addresses, in four 8-bit fields + noted in decimal, as described in Request for Comments #820, + "Assigned Numbers." For example: + + [10.0.3.19] + + Note: THE USE OF DOMAIN-LITERALS IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. It + is permitted only as a means of bypassing temporary + system limitations, such as name tables which are not + complete. + + The names of "top-level" domains, and the names of domains + under in the ARPA Internet, are registered with the Network + Information Center, SRI International, Menlo Park, California. + + 6.2.4. DOMAIN-DEPENDENT LOCAL STRING + + The local-part of an addr-spec in a mailbox specification + (i.e., the host's name for the mailbox) is understood to be + + + August 13, 1982 - 30 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + whatever the receiving mail protocol server allows. For exam- + ple, some systems do not understand mailbox references of the + form "P. D. Q. Bach", but others do. + + This specification treats periods (".") as lexical separators. + Hence, their presence in local-parts which are not quoted- + strings, is detected. However, such occurrences carry NO + semantics. That is, if a local-part has periods within it, an + address parser will divide the local-part into several tokens, + but the sequence of tokens will be treated as one uninter- + preted unit. The sequence will be re-assembled, when the + address is passed outside of the system such as to a mail pro- + tocol service. + + For example, the address: + + First.Last@Registry.Org + + is legal and does not require the local-part to be surrounded + with quotation-marks. (However, "First Last" DOES require + quoting.) The local-part of the address, when passed outside + of the mail system, within the Registry.Org domain, is + "First.Last", again without quotation marks. + + 6.2.5. BALANCING LOCAL-PART AND DOMAIN + + In some cases, the boundary between local-part and domain can + be flexible. The local-part may be a simple string, which is + used for the final determination of the recipient's mailbox. + All other levels of reference are, therefore, part of the + domain. + + For some systems, in the case of abbreviated reference to the + local and subordinate sub-domains, it may be possible to + specify only one reference within the domain part and place + the other, subordinate name-domain references within the + local-part. This would appear as: + + mailbox.sub1.sub2@this-domain + + Such a specification would be acceptable to address parsers + which conform to RFC #733, but do not support this newer + Internet standard. While contrary to the intent of this stan- + dard, the form is legal. + + Also, some sub-domains have a specification syntax which does + not conform to this standard. For example: + + sub-net.mailbox@sub-domain.domain + + + August 13, 1982 - 31 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + uses a different parsing sequence for local-part than for + domain. + + Note: As a rule, the domain specification should contain + fields which are encoded according to the syntax of + this standard and which contain generally-standardized + information. The local-part specification should con- + tain only that portion of the address which deviates + from the form or intention of the domain field. + + 6.2.6. MULTIPLE MAILBOXES + + An individual may have several mailboxes and wish to receive + mail at whatever mailbox is convenient for the sender to + access. This standard does not provide a means of specifying + "any member of" a list of mailboxes. + + A set of individuals may wish to receive mail as a single unit + (i.e., a distribution list). The construct permits + specification of such a list. Recipient mailboxes are speci- + fied within the bracketed part (":" - ";"). A copy of the + transmitted message is to be sent to each mailbox listed. + This standard does not permit recursive specification of + groups within groups. + + While a list must be named, it is not required that the con- + tents of the list be included. In this case, the
+ serves only as an indication of group distribution and would + appear in the form: + + name:; + + Some mail services may provide a group-list distribution + facility, accepting a single mailbox reference, expanding it + to the full distribution list, and relaying the mail to the + list's members. This standard provides no additional syntax + for indicating such a service. Using the address + alternative, while listing one mailbox in it, can mean either + that the mailbox reference will be expanded to a list or that + there is a group with one member. + + 6.2.7. EXPLICIT PATH SPECIFICATION + + At times, a message originator may wish to indicate the + transmission path that a message should follow. This is + called source routing. The normal addressing scheme, used in + an addr-spec, is carefully separated from such information; + the portion of a route-addr is provided for such occa- + sions. It specifies the sequence of hosts and/or transmission + + + August 13, 1982 - 32 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + services that are to be traversed. Both domain-refs and + domain-literals may be used. + + Note: The use of source routing is discouraged. Unless the + sender has special need of path restriction, the choice + of transmission route should be left to the mail tran- + sport service. + + 6.3. RESERVED ADDRESS + + It often is necessary to send mail to a site, without know- + ing any of its valid addresses. For example, there may be mail + system dysfunctions, or a user may wish to find out a person's + correct address, at that site. + + This standard specifies a single, reserved mailbox address + (local-part) which is to be valid at each site. Mail sent to + that address is to be routed to a person responsible for the + site's mail system or to a person with responsibility for general + site operation. The name of the reserved local-part address is: + + Postmaster + + so that "Postmaster@domain" is required to be valid. + + Note: This reserved local-part must be matched without sensi- + tivity to alphabetic case, so that "POSTMASTER", "postmas- + ter", and even "poStmASteR" is to be accepted. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 33 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY + + + ANSI. "USA Standard Code for Information Interchange," X3.4. + American National Standards Institute: New York (1968). Also + in: Feinler, E. and J. Postel, eds., "ARPANET Protocol Hand- + book", NIC 7104. + + ANSI. "Representations of Universal Time, Local Time Differen- + tials, and United States Time Zone References for Information + Interchange," X3.51-1975. American National Standards Insti- + tute: New York (1975). + + Bemer, R.W., "Time and the Computer." In: Interface Age (Feb. + 1979). + + Bennett, C.J. "JNT Mail Protocol". Joint Network Team, Ruther- + ford and Appleton Laboratory: Didcot, England. + + Bhushan, A.K., Pogran, K.T., Tomlinson, R.S., and White, J.E. + "Standardizing Network Mail Headers," ARPANET Request for + Comments No. 561, Network Information Center No. 18516; SRI + International: Menlo Park (September 1973). + + Birrell, A.D., Levin, R., Needham, R.M., and Schroeder, M.D. + "Grapevine: An Exercise in Distributed Computing," Communica- + tions of the ACM 25, 4 (April 1982), 260-274. + + Crocker, D.H., Vittal, J.J., Pogran, K.T., Henderson, D.A. + "Standard for the Format of ARPA Network Text Message," + ARPANET Request for Comments No. 733, Network Information + Center No. 41952. SRI International: Menlo Park (November + 1977). + + Feinler, E.J. and Postel, J.B. ARPANET Protocol Handbook, Net- + work Information Center No. 7104 (NTIS AD A003890). SRI + International: Menlo Park (April 1976). + + Harary, F. "Graph Theory". Addison-Wesley: Reading, Mass. + (1969). + + Levin, R. and Schroeder, M. "Transport of Electronic Messages + through a Network," TeleInformatics 79, pp. 29-33. North + Holland (1979). Also as Xerox Palo Alto Research Center + Technical Report CSL-79-4. + + Myer, T.H. and Henderson, D.A. "Message Transmission Protocol," + ARPANET Request for Comments, No. 680, Network Information + Center No. 32116. SRI International: Menlo Park (1975). + + + August 13, 1982 - 34 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + NBS. "Specification of Message Format for Computer Based Message + Systems, Recommended Federal Information Processing Standard." + National Bureau of Standards: Gaithersburg, Maryland + (October 1981). + + NIC. Internet Protocol Transition Workbook. Network Information + Center, SRI-International, Menlo Park, California (March + 1982). + + Oppen, D.C. and Dalal, Y.K. "The Clearinghouse: A Decentralized + Agent for Locating Named Objects in a Distributed Environ- + ment," OPD-T8103. Xerox Office Products Division: Palo Alto, + CA. (October 1981). + + Postel, J.B. "Assigned Numbers," ARPANET Request for Comments, + No. 820. SRI International: Menlo Park (August 1982). + + Postel, J.B. "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol," ARPANET Request + for Comments, No. 821. SRI International: Menlo Park (August + 1982). + + Shoch, J.F. "Internetwork naming, addressing and routing," in + Proc. 17th IEEE Computer Society International Conference, pp. + 72-79, Sept. 1978, IEEE Cat. No. 78 CH 1388-8C. + + Su, Z. and Postel, J. "The Domain Naming Convention for Internet + User Applications," ARPANET Request for Comments, No. 819. + SRI International: Menlo Park (August 1982). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 35 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + APPENDIX + + + A. EXAMPLES + + A.1. ADDRESSES + + A.1.1. Alfred Neuman + + A.1.2. Neuman@BBN-TENEXA + + These two "Alfred Neuman" examples have identical seman- + tics, as far as the operation of the local host's mail sending + (distribution) program (also sometimes called its "mailer") + and the remote host's mail protocol server are concerned. In + the first example, the "Alfred Neuman" is ignored by the + mailer, as "Neuman@BBN-TENEXA" completely specifies the reci- + pient. The second example contains no superfluous informa- + tion, and, again, "Neuman@BBN-TENEXA" is the intended reci- + pient. + + Note: When the message crosses name-domain boundaries, then + these specifications must be changed, so as to indicate + the remainder of the hierarchy, starting with the top + level. + + A.1.3. "George, Ted" + + This form might be used to indicate that a single mailbox + is shared by several users. The quoted string is ignored by + the originating host's mailer, because "Shared@Group.Arpanet" + completely specifies the destination mailbox. + + A.1.4. Wilt . (the Stilt) Chamberlain@NBA.US + + The "(the Stilt)" is a comment, which is NOT included in + the destination mailbox address handed to the originating + system's mailer. The local-part of the address is the string + "Wilt.Chamberlain", with NO space between the first and second + words. + + A.1.5. Address Lists + + Gourmets: Pompous Person , + Childs@WGBH.Boston, Galloping Gourmet@ + ANT.Down-Under (Australian National Television), + Cheapie@Discount-Liquors;, + Cruisers: Port@Portugal, Jones@SEA;, + Another@Somewhere.SomeOrg + + + August 13, 1982 - 36 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + This group list example points out the use of comments and the + mixing of addresses and groups. + + A.2. ORIGINATOR ITEMS + + A.2.1. Author-sent + + George Jones logs into his host as "Jones". He sends + mail himself. + + From: Jones@Group.Org + + or + + From: George Jones + + A.2.2. Secretary-sent + + George Jones logs in as Jones on his host. His secre- + tary, who logs in as Secy sends mail for him. Replies to the + mail should go to George. + + From: George Jones + Sender: Secy@Other-Group + + A.2.3. Secretary-sent, for user of shared directory + + George Jones' secretary sends mail for George. Replies + should go to George. + + From: George Jones + Sender: Secy@Other-Group + + Note that there need not be a space between "Jones" and the + "<", but adding a space enhances readability (as is the case + in other examples. + + A.2.4. Committee activity, with one author + + George is a member of a committee. He wishes to have any + replies to his message go to all committee members. + + From: George Jones + Sender: Jones@Host + Reply-To: The Committee: Jones@Host.Net, + Smith@Other.Org, + Doe@Somewhere-Else; + + Note that if George had not included himself in the + + + August 13, 1982 - 37 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + enumeration of The Committee, he would not have gotten an + implicit reply; the presence of the "Reply-to" field SUPER- + SEDES the sending of a reply to the person named in the "From" + field. + + A.2.5. Secretary acting as full agent of author + + George Jones asks his secretary (Secy@Host) to send a + message for him in his capacity as Group. He wants his secre- + tary to handle all replies. + + From: George Jones + Sender: Secy@Host + Reply-To: Secy@Host + + A.2.6. Agent for user without online mailbox + + A friend of George's, Sarah, is visiting. George's + secretary sends some mail to a friend of Sarah in computer- + land. Replies should go to George, whose mailbox is Jones at + Registry. + + From: Sarah Friendly + Sender: Secy-Name + Reply-To: Jones@Registry. + + A.2.7. Agent for member of a committee + + George's secretary sends out a message which was authored + jointly by all the members of a committee. Note that the name + of the committee cannot be specified, since names are + not permitted in the From field. + + From: Jones@Host, + Smith@Other-Host, + Doe@Somewhere-Else + Sender: Secy@SHost + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 38 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + A.3. COMPLETE HEADERS + + A.3.1. Minimum required + + Date: 26 Aug 76 1429 EDT Date: 26 Aug 76 1429 EDT + From: Jones@Registry.Org or From: Jones@Registry.Org + Bcc: To: Smith@Registry.Org + + Note that the "Bcc" field may be empty, while the "To" field + is required to have at least one address. + + A.3.2. Using some of the additional fields + + Date: 26 Aug 76 1430 EDT + From: George Jones + Sender: Secy@SHOST + To: "Al Neuman"@Mad-Host, + Sam.Irving@Other-Host + Message-ID: + + A.3.3. About as complex as you're going to get + + Date : 27 Aug 76 0932 PDT + From : Ken Davis + Subject : Re: The Syntax in the RFC + Sender : KSecy@Other-Host + Reply-To : Sam.Irving@Reg.Organization + To : George Jones , + Al.Neuman@MAD.Publisher + cc : Important folk: + Tom Softwood , + "Sam Irving"@Other-Host;, + Standard Distribution: + /main/davis/people/standard@Other-Host, + "standard.dist.3"@Tops-20-Host>; + Comment : Sam is away on business. He asked me to handle + his mail for him. He'll be able to provide a + more accurate explanation when he returns + next week. + In-Reply-To: , George's message + X-Special-action: This is a sample of user-defined field- + names. There could also be a field-name + "Special-action", but its name might later be + preempted + Message-ID: <4231.629.XYzi-What@Other-Host> + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 39 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + B. SIMPLE FIELD PARSING + + Some mail-reading software systems may wish to perform only + minimal processing, ignoring the internal syntax of structured + field-bodies and treating them the same as unstructured-field- + bodies. Such software will need only to distinguish: + + o Header fields from the message body, + + o Beginnings of fields from lines which continue fields, + + o Field-names from field-contents. + + The abbreviated set of syntactic rules which follows will + suffice for this purpose. It describes a limited view of mes- + sages and is a subset of the syntactic rules provided in the main + part of this specification. One small exception is that the con- + tents of field-bodies consist only of text: + + B.1. SYNTAX + + + message = *field *(CRLF *text) + + field = field-name ":" [field-body] CRLF + + field-name = 1* + + field-body = *text [CRLF LWSP-char field-body] + + + B.2. SEMANTICS + + Headers occur before the message body and are terminated by + a null line (i.e., two contiguous CRLFs). + + A line which continues a header field begins with a SPACE or + HTAB character, while a line beginning a field starts with a + printable character which is not a colon. + + A field-name consists of one or more printable characters + (excluding colon, space, and control-characters). A field-name + MUST be contained on one line. Upper and lower case are not dis- + tinguished when comparing field-names. + + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 40 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + C. DIFFERENCES FROM RFC #733 + + The following summarizes the differences between this stan- + dard and the one specified in Arpanet Request for Comments #733, + "Standard for the Format of ARPA Network Text Messages". The + differences are listed in the order of their occurrence in the + current specification. + + C.1. FIELD DEFINITIONS + + C.1.1. FIELD NAMES + + These now must be a sequence of printable characters. They + may not contain any LWSP-chars. + + C.2. LEXICAL TOKENS + + C.2.1. SPECIALS + + The characters period ("."), left-square bracket ("["), and + right-square bracket ("]") have been added. For presentation + purposes, and when passing a specification to a system that + does not conform to this standard, periods are to be contigu- + ous with their surrounding lexical tokens. No linear-white- + space is permitted between them. The presence of one LWSP- + char between other tokens is still directed. + + C.2.2. ATOM + + Atoms may not contain SPACE. + + C.2.3. SPECIAL TEXT + + ctext and qtext have had backslash ("\") added to the list of + prohibited characters. + + C.2.4. DOMAINS + + The lexical tokens and have been + added. + + C.3. MESSAGE SPECIFICATION + + C.3.1. TRACE + + The "Return-path:" and "Received:" fields have been specified. + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 41 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + C.3.2. FROM + + The "From" field must contain machine-usable addresses (addr- + spec). Multiple addresses may be specified, but named-lists + (groups) may not. + + C.3.3. RESENT + + The meta-construct of prefacing field names with the string + "Resent-" has been added, to indicate that a message has been + forwarded by an intermediate recipient. + + C.3.4. DESTINATION + + A message must contain at least one destination address field. + "To" and "CC" are required to contain at least one address. + + C.3.5. IN-REPLY-TO + + The field-body is no longer a comma-separated list, although a + sequence is still permitted. + + C.3.6. REFERENCE + + The field-body is no longer a comma-separated list, although a + sequence is still permitted. + + C.3.7. ENCRYPTED + + A field has been specified that permits senders to indicate + that the body of a message has been encrypted. + + C.3.8. EXTENSION-FIELD + + Extension fields are prohibited from beginning with the char- + acters "X-". + + C.4. DATE AND TIME SPECIFICATION + + C.4.1. SIMPLIFICATION + + Fewer optional forms are permitted and the list of three- + letter time zones has been shortened. + + C.5. ADDRESS SPECIFICATION + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 42 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + C.5.1. ADDRESS + + The use of quoted-string, and the ":"-atom-":" construct, have + been removed. An address now is either a single mailbox + reference or is a named list of addresses. The latter indi- + cates a group distribution. + + C.5.2. GROUPS + + Group lists are now required to to have a name. Group lists + may not be nested. + + C.5.3. MAILBOX + + A mailbox specification may indicate a person's name, as + before. Such a named list no longer may specify multiple + mailboxes and may not be nested. + + C.5.4. ROUTE ADDRESSING + + Addresses now are taken to be absolute, global specifications, + independent of transmission paths. The construct has + been provided, to permit explicit specification of transmis- + sion path. RFC #733's use of multiple at-signs ("@") was + intended as a general syntax for indicating routing and/or + hierarchical addressing. The current standard separates these + specifications and only one at-sign is permitted. + + C.5.5. AT-SIGN + + The string " at " no longer is used as an address delimiter. + Only at-sign ("@") serves the function. + + C.5.6. DOMAINS + + Hierarchical, logical name-domains have been added. + + C.6. RESERVED ADDRESS + + The local-part "Postmaster" has been reserved, so that users can + be guaranteed at least one valid address at a site. + + + + + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 43 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + D. ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF SYNTAX RULES + + address = mailbox ; one addressee + / group ; named list + addr-spec = local-part "@" domain ; global address + ALPHA = + ; (101-132, 65.- 90.) + ; (141-172, 97.-122.) + atom = 1* + authentic = "From" ":" mailbox ; Single author + / ( "Sender" ":" mailbox ; Actual submittor + "From" ":" 1#mailbox) ; Multiple authors + ; or not sender + CHAR = ; ( 0-177, 0.-127.) + comment = "(" *(ctext / quoted-pair / comment) ")" + CR = ; ( 15, 13.) + CRLF = CR LF + ctext = may be folded + ")", "\" & CR, & including + linear-white-space> + CTL = ; ( 177, 127.) + date = 1*2DIGIT month 2DIGIT ; day month year + ; e.g. 20 Jun 82 + dates = orig-date ; Original + [ resent-date ] ; Forwarded + date-time = [ day "," ] date time ; dd mm yy + ; hh:mm:ss zzz + day = "Mon" / "Tue" / "Wed" / "Thu" + / "Fri" / "Sat" / "Sun" + delimiters = specials / linear-white-space / comment + destination = "To" ":" 1#address ; Primary + / "Resent-To" ":" 1#address + / "cc" ":" 1#address ; Secondary + / "Resent-cc" ":" 1#address + / "bcc" ":" #address ; Blind carbon + / "Resent-bcc" ":" #address + DIGIT = ; ( 60- 71, 48.- 57.) + domain = sub-domain *("." sub-domain) + domain-literal = "[" *(dtext / quoted-pair) "]" + domain-ref = atom ; symbolic reference + dtext = may be folded + "]", "\" & CR, & including + linear-white-space> + extension-field = + + + + August 13, 1982 - 44 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + field = field-name ":" [ field-body ] CRLF + fields = dates ; Creation time, + source ; author id & one + 1*destination ; address required + *optional-field ; others optional + field-body = field-body-contents + [CRLF LWSP-char field-body] + field-body-contents = + + field-name = 1* + group = phrase ":" [#mailbox] ";" + hour = 2DIGIT ":" 2DIGIT [":" 2DIGIT] + ; 00:00:00 - 23:59:59 + HTAB = ; ( 11, 9.) + LF = ; ( 12, 10.) + linear-white-space = 1*([CRLF] LWSP-char) ; semantics = SPACE + ; CRLF => folding + local-part = word *("." word) ; uninterpreted + ; case-preserved + LWSP-char = SPACE / HTAB ; semantics = SPACE + mailbox = addr-spec ; simple address + / phrase route-addr ; name & addr-spec + message = fields *( CRLF *text ) ; Everything after + ; first null line + ; is message body + month = "Jan" / "Feb" / "Mar" / "Apr" + / "May" / "Jun" / "Jul" / "Aug" + / "Sep" / "Oct" / "Nov" / "Dec" + msg-id = "<" addr-spec ">" ; Unique message id + optional-field = + / "Message-ID" ":" msg-id + / "Resent-Message-ID" ":" msg-id + / "In-Reply-To" ":" *(phrase / msg-id) + / "References" ":" *(phrase / msg-id) + / "Keywords" ":" #phrase + / "Subject" ":" *text + / "Comments" ":" *text + / "Encrypted" ":" 1#2word + / extension-field ; To be defined + / user-defined-field ; May be pre-empted + orig-date = "Date" ":" date-time + originator = authentic ; authenticated addr + [ "Reply-To" ":" 1#address] ) + phrase = 1*word ; Sequence of words + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 45 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + qtext = , ; => may be folded + "\" & CR, and including + linear-white-space> + quoted-pair = "\" CHAR ; may quote any char + quoted-string = <"> *(qtext/quoted-pair) <">; Regular qtext or + ; quoted chars. + received = "Received" ":" ; one per relay + ["from" domain] ; sending host + ["by" domain] ; receiving host + ["via" atom] ; physical path + *("with" atom) ; link/mail protocol + ["id" msg-id] ; receiver msg id + ["for" addr-spec] ; initial form + ";" date-time ; time received + + resent = resent-authentic + [ "Resent-Reply-To" ":" 1#address] ) + resent-authentic = + = "Resent-From" ":" mailbox + / ( "Resent-Sender" ":" mailbox + "Resent-From" ":" 1#mailbox ) + resent-date = "Resent-Date" ":" date-time + return = "Return-path" ":" route-addr ; return address + route = 1#("@" domain) ":" ; path-relative + route-addr = "<" [route] addr-spec ">" + source = [ trace ] ; net traversals + originator ; original mail + [ resent ] ; forwarded + SPACE = ; ( 40, 32.) + specials = "(" / ")" / "<" / ">" / "@" ; Must be in quoted- + / "," / ";" / ":" / "\" / <"> ; string, to use + / "." / "[" / "]" ; within a word. + sub-domain = domain-ref / domain-literal + text = atoms, specials, + CR & bare LF, but NOT ; comments and + including CRLF> ; quoted-strings are + ; NOT recognized. + time = hour zone ; ANSI and Military + trace = return ; path to sender + 1*received ; receipt tags + user-defined-field = + + word = atom / quoted-string + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 46 - RFC #822 + + + + Standard for ARPA Internet Text Messages + + + zone = "UT" / "GMT" ; Universal Time + ; North American : UT + / "EST" / "EDT" ; Eastern: - 5/ - 4 + / "CST" / "CDT" ; Central: - 6/ - 5 + / "MST" / "MDT" ; Mountain: - 7/ - 6 + / "PST" / "PDT" ; Pacific: - 8/ - 7 + / 1ALPHA ; Military: Z = UT; + <"> = ; ( 42, 34.) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + August 13, 1982 - 47 - RFC #822 + -- cgit v1.2.3