Network Working Group P. Resnick, Ed. Request for Comments: 5322 Qualcomm Incorporated Obsoletes: 2822 October 2008 Updates: 4021
Category: Standards Track
Internet Message Format
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Plea 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. Abstract
This document specifies the Internet Message Format (IMF), a syntax
for text messages that are nt between computer urs, within the
framework of "electronic mail" messages. This specification is a
revision of Request For Comments (RFC) 2822, which itlf superded Request For Comments (RFC) 822, "Standard for the Format of ARPA衬衫怎么读
Internet Text Messages", updating it to reflect current practice and incorporating incremental changes that were specified in other RFCs. Resnick Standards Track [Page 1]
Table of Contents女生练胸
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.
2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2.1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2.2. Syntactic Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5积木叠叠乐
1.2.3. Structure of This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Lexical Analysis of Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 6 2.1.1. Line Length Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2. Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2.1. Unstructured Header Field Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2.2. Structured Header Field Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2.
3. Long Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2. Lexical Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.1. Quoted characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.2. Folding White Space and Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2.3. Atom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.2.
4. Quoted Strings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.2.
5. Miscellaneous Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.3. Date and Time Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.4. Address Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.4.1. Addr-Spec Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.5. Overall Message Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.
6. Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.6.1. The Origination Date Field . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 22 3.6.2. Originator Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.6.3. Destination Address Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.6.4. Identification Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.6.5. Informational Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.6.6. Rent Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.6.
7. Trace Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.6.8. Optional Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4. Obsolete Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4.1. Miscellaneous Obsolete Tokens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.2. Obsolete Folding White Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.3. Obsolete Date and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 4.4. Obsolete Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4.
5. Obsolete Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4.5.1. Obsolete Origination Date Field . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.5.2. Obsolete Originator Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.5.3. Obsolete Destination Address Fields . . . . . . . . . 37 4.5.4. Obsolete Identification Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 4.5.5. Obsolete Informational Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Resnick Standards Track [Page 2]
4.5.6. Obsolete Rent Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 4.5.7. Obsolete Trace Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38finished
4.5.8. Obsolete optional fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Appendix A. Example Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Appendix A.1. Addressing Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Appendix A.1.1. A Message from One Person to Another with
Simple Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Appendix A.1.2. Different Types of Mailboxes . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Appendix A.1.3. Group Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Appendix A.2. Reply Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Appendix A.3. Rent Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Appendix A.4. Messages with Trace Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Appendix A.5. White Space, Comments, and Other Oddities . . . . 49 Appendix A.6. Obsoleted Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Appendix A.6.1. Obsolete Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Appendix A.6.2. Obsolete Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Appendix A.6.3. Obsolete White Space and Comments . . . . . . . . 51 Appendix B. Differences from Earlier Specifications . . . . . 52 Appendix C. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Resnick Standards Track [Page 3]
联系人的英文
1. Introduction
1.1. Scope
This document specifies the Internet Message Format (IMF), a syntax
for text messages that are nt between computer urs, within the
framework of "electronic mail" messages. This specification is an
update to [RFC2822], which itlf superded [RFC0822], updating it
to reflect current practice and incorporating incremental changes
that were specified in other RFCs such as [RFC1123].
This document specifies a syntax only for text messages. In
particular, it makes no provision for the transmission of images,
特种设备管理制度audio, or other sorts of structured data in electronic mail messages. There are veral extensions published, such as the MIME document
ries ([RFC2045], [RFC2046], [RFC2049]), which describe mechanisms
for the transmission of such data through electronic mail, either by extending the syntax provided here or by structuring such messages to conform to this syntax. Tho mechanisms are outside of the scope of this specification.
In the context of electronic mail, messages are viewed as having an
envelope and contents. The envelope contains whatever information is needed to accomplish transmission and delivery. (See [RFC5321] for a discussion of the envelope.) The contents compri the object to be delivered to the recipient. This specification applies only to the
format and some of the mantics of message contents. It contains no specification of the information in the envelope.
However, some message systems may u information from the contents
to create the envelope. It is intended that this specification
facilitate the acquisition of such information by programs.
This specification is intended as a definition of what message
content format is to be pasd between systems. Though some message systems locally store messages in this format (which eliminates the
need for translation between formats) and others u formats that
differ from the one specified in this specification, local storage is outside of the scope of this specification.
Note: This specification is not intended to dictate the internal
formats ud by sites, the specific message system features that
they are expected to support, or any of the characteristics of
ur interface programs that create or read messages. In
addition, this document does not specify an encoding of the
characters for either transport or storage; that is, it does not
specify the number of bits ud or how tho bits are specifically transferred over the wire or stored on disk.
Resnick Standards Track [Page 4]
1.2. Notational Conventions
1.2.1. Requirements Notation
This document occasionally us terms that appear in capital letters. When the terms "MUST", "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD
NOT", and "MAY" appear capitalized, they are being ud to indicate
particular requirements of this specification. A discussion of the
meanings of the terms appears in [RFC2119].
1.2.2. Syntactic Notation
This specification us the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)
[RFC5234] notation for the formal definitions of the syntax of
messages. Characters will be specified either by a decimal value
(e.g., the value %d65 for upperca A and %d97 for lowerca A) or by a ca-innsitive literal value enclod in quotation marks (e.g.,
"A" for either upperca or lowerca A).
1.2.3. Structure of This Document
This document is divided into veral ctions.
This ction, ction 1, is a short introduction to the document.
Section 2 lays out the general description of a message and its
constituent parts. This is an overview to help the reader understand some of the general principles ud in the later portions of this
document. Any examples in this ction MUST NOT be taken as
specification of the formal syntax of any part of a message.
Section 3 specifies formal ABNF rules for the structure of each part of a message (the syntax) and describes the relationship between
tho parts and their meaning in the context of a message (the
mantics). That is, it lays out the actual rules for the structure of each part of a message (the syntax) as well as a description of
款待英语the parts and instructions for their interpretation (the mantics). This includes analysis of the syntax and mantics of subparts of
messages that have specific structure. The syntax included in
ction 3 reprents messages as they MUST be created. There are
also notes in ction 3 to indicate if any of the options specified
in the syntax SHOULD be ud over any of the others.
Both ctions 2 and 3 describe messages that are legal to generate眼保健操最新版
for purpos of this specification.
Resnick Standards Track [Page 5]
