RFC 1653: SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration
This RFC has been replaced. Do not implement against it for new work — it was formally obsoleted by RFC 1870.
Current document in this lineage: RFC 1870 — SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This memo defines an extension to the SMTP service whereby an SMTP client and server may interact to give the server an opportunity to decline to accept a message (perhaps temporarily) based on the client's estimate of the message size. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC1653
- Published
- July 1994
- Authors
- J. Klensin; N. Freed; K. Moore
- Status
- DRAFT STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- app
- Pages
- 8
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Standards lineage
This document is one revision in a chain of 3 RFCs, each formally replacing the one before it.
- RFC 1427 (1993)
- RFC 1653 (1994)
- RFC 1870 (1995) ✓
Read the full history of SMTP Service Extension for Message Size Declaration →
Referenced by
One later RFC formally updates or obsoletes part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 1869SMTP Service ExtensionsObsoleted
November 1995
- RFC 1891SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status NotificationsObsoleted
January 1996
- RFC 1893Enhanced Mail System Status CodesObsoleted
January 1996
- RFC 1830SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission of Large and Binary MIME MessagesObsoleted
August 1995
- RFC 1845SMTP Service Extension for Checkpoint/RestartCurrent
September 1995
- RFC 1846SMTP 521 Reply CodeUpdated
September 1995
- RFC 1985SMTP Service Extension for Remote Message Queue StartingCurrent
August 1996
- RFC 2033Local Mail Transfer ProtocolCurrent
October 1996
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?