RFC 1891: SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications
This RFC has been replaced. Do not implement against it for new work — it was formally obsoleted by RFC 3461.
Current version: RFC 3461 — Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs)
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This memo defines an extension to the SMTP service, which allows an SMTP client to specify (a) that delivery status notifications (DSNs) should be generated under certain conditions, (b) whether such notifications should return the contents of the message, and (c) additional information, to be returned with a DSN, that allows the sender to identify both the recipient(s) for which the DSN was issued, and the transaction in which the original message was sent. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC1891
- Published
- January 1996
- Authors
- K. Moore
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- app
- Pages
- 31
- Also known as
- —
- Obsoleted by:
- RFC 3461
Topics
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 1893Enhanced Mail System Status CodesObsoleted
January 1996
- RFC 1869SMTP Service ExtensionsObsoleted
November 1995
- RFC 1653SMTP Service Extension for Message Size DeclarationObsoleted
July 1994
- RFC 1846SMTP 521 Reply CodeUpdated
September 1995
- RFC 1845SMTP Service Extension for Checkpoint/RestartCurrent
September 1995
- RFC 1830SMTP Service Extensions for Transmission of Large and Binary MIME MessagesObsoleted
August 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?