1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
|
Network Working Group H. Alvestrand
Request for Comments: 1496 SINTEF DELAB
Updates: 1328 J. Romaguera
NetConsult AG
K. Jordan
Control Data Systems, Inc.
August 1993
Rules for Downgrading Messages from X.400/88 to X.400/84 When
MIME Content-Types are Present in the Messages
Status of this Memo
This RFC specifies an IAB standards track protocol for the Internet
community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Please refer to the current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol
Standards" for the standardization state and status of this protocol.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................... 1
2. Basic approach ............................................. 2
3. Conversion rules ........................................... 3
3.1 EBP conversions to Basic .................................. 3
3.2 Encapsulation format ...................................... 3
4. Implications ............................................... 4
5. Security Considerations .................................... 4
6. Authors' Addresses ......................................... 4
7. References ................................................. 5
1. Introduction
Interworking between X.400(88) and MIME is achieved by [4], which
complements RFC-1327 [2], which in turn specifies the interworking
between X.400(88) and RFC-822 based mail.
Interworking between X.400(88) and X.400 (84) is achieved by RFC-1328
[3]. That document does not describe what to do in the case where
body parts arrive at the gateway that cannot be adequately
represented in the X.400(84) system.
This document describes how RFC-1328 must be modified in order to
provide adequate support for the scenarios:
SMTP(MIME) -> X.400(84)
X.400(84) -> SMTP(MIME)
Alvestrand, Romaguera & Jordan [Page 1]
^L
RFC 1496 HARPOON August 1993
It replaces chapter 6 of RFC-1328. The rest of RFC-1328 is NOT
obsoleted.
NOTE: A desireable side-effect of HARPOON is that a standardized
method for the identification and transmission of multimedia and
binary data (like spreadsheets) between X.400/84 UAs is achieved.
While this method is not compatible with current proprietary
approaches, we believe that it requires less invasive changes to
current UAs than other possible methods.
This memo updates RFC 1328. HARPOON is a pure name, and has no
meaning. Please send comments to the MIME-MHS mailing list
<mime-mhs@surnet.nl>.
2. Basic approach
The approach is to imagine that the connection X.400(84) <->
SMTP(MIME) never happens. This, of course, is an illusion, but can be
a very useful illusion.
All mail will therefore go on one of the paths
X.400(84) -> X.400(88) -> SMTP(MIME)
SMTP(MIME) -> X.400(88) -> X.400(84)
when it goes between a MIME user and an X.400(84) user.
The approach at the interface between X.400(88) and X.400(84) is:
o Convert what you can
o Encapsulate what you have to
o Never drop a message
Of course, for X.400/88 body parts that are already defined in
X.400/84, no downgrading should be done. In particular, multi-body
messages should remain multi-body messages, IA5 messages including
IA5 messages encoded as Extended Body Parts) should remain IA5
messages, and G3Fax messages should remain G3Fax messages.
Alvestrand, Romaguera & Jordan [Page 2]
^L
RFC 1496 HARPOON August 1993
3. Conversion rules
3.1. EBP conversions to Basic
Some body parts are defined by X.400(88) as having both a Basic form
and an Extended form. These are listed in Annex B of X.420.
For all of these, the transformation from the Extended Body Part to
the Basic Body Part takes the form of putting the PARAMETERS and the
DATA members together in a SEQUENCE.
This transformation should be applied by the gateway in order to
allow (for example) X.400(88) systems that use the Extended form of
the IA5 body part to communicate with X.400(84) systems.
3.2. Encapsulation format
For any body part that cannot be used directly in X.400(84), the
following IA5Text body part is made:
- Content = IA5String
- First bytes of content: (the description is in USASCII, with C
escape sequences used to represent control characters):
MIME-version: <version>\r\n
Content-type: <the proper MIME content type>\r\n
Content-transfer-encoding: <quoted-printable or base64>\r\n
<Possibly other Content headings here, terminated by\r\n>
\r\n
<Here follows the bytes of the content, as per [4], encoded in the
proper encoding>
All implementations MUST place the MIME-version: header first in the
body part. Headers that are placed by [2] and [4] into other parts of
the message MUST NOT be placed in the MIME body part.
This includes RFC-822 headings carried as heading-extensions, which
must be placed in a new IA5 body part starting with the string "RFC-
822-HEADERS", as specified in [2], Appendix G.
Other heading-extensions are still handled as described in chapter 5
of RFC 1328: They are dropped.
Since all X.400(88) body parts can be represented in MIME by using
the x400-bp MIME content-type, this conversion will never fail.
Alvestrand, Romaguera & Jordan [Page 3]
^L
RFC 1496 HARPOON August 1993
In the reverse direction, any IA5 body part that starts with the
token "MIME-Version:" will be subjected to conversion according to
[4] before including the body part into an X.400(88) message.
4. Implications
The implications are several:
- People with X.400(84) readers who have the ability to save messages
to file will now be able to save MIME multimedia messages
- People who can use features like the "Mailcaps" file to identify
what to do about a bodypart can now grab implementations of MIME
that can run as subprograms and achieve at least some multimedia
functionality
5. Security Considerations
The security considerations in [1] and [4] (beware of trojans that
can hit you if your UA automagically starts programs for you) are now
relevant also for X.400(84) systems.
6. Authors' Addresses
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
SINTEF DELAB
N-7034 Trondheim
NORWAY
EMail: Harald.T.Alvestrand@delab.sintef.no
Kevin E. Jordan, ARH215
Control Data Systems, Inc.
4201 Lexington Avenue N
Arden Hills, MN 55126
USA
EMail: Kevin.E.Jordan@mercury.oss.arh.cpg.cdc.com
James A. Romaguera
NetConsult AG
Mettlendwaldweg 20a
3037 Herrenschwanden
Switzerland
EMail: Romaguera@netconsult.ch
Alvestrand, Romaguera & Jordan [Page 4]
^L
RFC 1496 HARPOON August 1993
7. References
[1] Borenstein, N, and N. Freed, "MIME: Mechanisms for Specifying
and Describing the Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 1341,
Bellcore, Innosoft, June 1992.
[2] Hardcastle-Kille, S., "Mapping between X.400(1988) / ISO 10021
and RFC-822", RFC 1327, University College London, May 1992.
[3] Hardcastle-Kille, S., "X.400 1988 to 1984 downgrading", RFC
1328, University College London, May 1992.
[4] Alvestrand, H., Kille, S., Miles, R., Rose, M., and S. Thompson,
"Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822 Message Bodies", RFC 1494,
SINTEF DELAB, ISODE Consortium, Soft*Switch, Inc, Dover Beach
Consulting, Inc., Soft*Switch, Inc., August 1993.
Alvestrand, Romaguera & Jordan [Page 5]
^L
|
