RFC 1892: The Multipart/Report Content Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages
This RFC has been replaced. Do not implement against it for new work — it was formally obsoleted by RFC 3462.
Current document in this lineage: RFC 6522 — The Multipart/Report Media Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
The Multipart/Report MIME content-type is a general "family" or "container" type for electronic mail reports of any kind. Although this memo defines only the use of the Multipart/Report content-type with respect to delivery status reports, mail processing programs will benefit if a single content-type is used to for all kinds of reports. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC1892
- Published
- January 1996
- Authors
- G. Vaudreuil
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- app
- Pages
- 4
- Also known as
- —
- Obsoleted by:
- RFC 3462
Topics
Standards lineage
This document is one revision in a chain of 3 RFCs, each formally replacing the one before it.
- RFC 1892 (1996)
- RFC 3462 (2003)
- RFC 6522 (2012) ✓
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 1894An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status NotificationsObsoleted
January 1996
- RFC 1874SGML Media TypesCurrent
December 1995
- RFC 1873Message/External-Body Content-ID Access TypeCurrent
December 1995
- RFC 1872The MIME Multipart/Related Content-typeObsoleted
December 1995
- RFC 1867Form-based File Upload in HTMLObsoleted
November 1995
- RFC 1844Multimedia E-mail (MIME) User Agent ChecklistCurrent
August 1995
- RFC 1767MIME Encapsulation of EDI ObjectsCurrent
March 1995
- RFC 2110MIME E-mail Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)Obsoleted
March 1997
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?