Network Working Group K. Moore
Request for Comments: 3464 University of Tennessee
Obsoletes: 1894 G. Vaudreuil
Category: Standards Track Lucent Technologies
January 2003
Network Working Group K. Moore
Request for Comments: 3464 University of Tennessee
Obsoletes: 1894 G. Vaudreuil
Category: Standards Track Lucent Technologies
January 2003
An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications
用于传递状态通知的可扩展消息格式
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please 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.
本文件规定了互联网社区的互联网标准跟踪协议，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。有关本协议的标准化状态和状态，请参考当前版本的“互联网官方协议标准”（STD 1）。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2003年）。版权所有。
Abstract
摘要
This memo defines a Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) content-type that may be used by a message transfer agent (MTA) or electronic mail gateway to report the result of an attempt to deliver a message to one or more recipients. This content-type is intended as a machine-processable replacement for the various types of delivery status notifications currently used in Internet electronic mail.
此备忘录定义了一种多用途Internet邮件扩展（MIME）内容类型，邮件传输代理（MTA）或电子邮件网关可使用该内容类型报告试图向一个或多个收件人传递邮件的结果。此内容类型旨在作为当前在Internet电子邮件中使用的各种类型的传递状态通知的机器可处理替代。
Because many messages are sent between the Internet and other messaging systems (such as X.400 or the so-called "Local Area Network (LAN)-based" systems), the Delivery Status Notification (DSN) protocol is designed to be useful in a multi-protocol messaging environment. To this end, the protocol described in this memo provides for the carriage of "foreign" addresses and error codes, in addition to those normally used in Internet mail. Additional attributes may also be defined to support "tunneling" of foreign notifications through Internet mail.
由于许多消息在Internet和其他消息传递系统（如X.400或所谓的“基于局域网（LAN）”的系统）之间发送，因此传递状态通知（DSN）协议在多协议消息传递环境中非常有用。为此，本备忘录中所述的协议规定，除互联网邮件中通常使用的地址和错误代码外，还可携带“外国”地址和错误代码。还可以定义其他属性以支持通过Internet邮件“隧道”发送外来通知。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1 Purposes .....................................................3
1.2 Requirements .................................................4
1.3 Terminology ..................................................5
2. Format of a Delivery Status Notification ........................7
2.1 The message/delivery-status content-type .....................9
2.1.1 General conventions for DSN fields ........................9
2.1.2 "*-type" sub-fields .......................................9
2.1.3 Lexical tokens imported from RFC 822 .....................10
2.2 Per-Message DSN Fields ......................................11
2.2.1 The Original-Envelope-Id field ...........................11
2.2.2 The Reporting-MTA DSN field ..............................12
2.2.3 The DSN-Gateway field ....................................13
2.2.4 The Received-From-MTA DSN field ..........................14
2.2.5 The Arrival-Date DSN field ...............................14
2.3 Per-Recipient DSN fields ....................................14
2.3.1 Original-Recipient field .................................15
2.3.2 Final-Recipient field ....................................15
2.3.3 Action field .............................................16
2.3.4 Status field .............................................18
2.3.5 Remote-MTA field .........................................19
2.3.6 Diagnostic-Code field ....................................19
2.3.7 Last-Attempt-Date field ..................................20
2.3.8 final-log-id field .......................................20
2.3.9 Will-Retry-Until field ...................................20
2.4 Extension fields ............................................21
3. Conformance and Usage Requirements .............................22
4. Security Considerations ........................................23
4.1 Forgery .....................................................23
4.2 Confidentiality .............................................23
4.3 Non-Repudiation .............................................25
5. References .....................................................25
6. Acknowledgments ................................................26
Appendix A - Collected Grammar ....................................27
Appendix B - Guidelines for Gatewaying DSNS .......................29
Gatewaying from other mail systems to DSNs ......................29
Gatewaying from DSNs to other mail systems ......................30
Appendix C - Guidelines for Use of DSNS By Mailing List Exploders .30
Appendix D - IANA Registration Forms for DSN Types ................31
IANA registration form for address-type .........................32
IANA registration form for diagnostic-type ......................32
IANA registration form for MTA-name-type ........................32
Appendix E - Examples .............................................33
Simple DSN ......................................................34
Multi-Recipient DSN .............................................35
DSN from gateway to foreign system ..............................36
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1 Purposes .....................................................3
1.2 Requirements .................................................4
1.3 Terminology ..................................................5
2. Format of a Delivery Status Notification ........................7
2.1 The message/delivery-status content-type .....................9
2.1.1 General conventions for DSN fields ........................9
2.1.2 "*-type" sub-fields .......................................9
2.1.3 Lexical tokens imported from RFC 822 .....................10
2.2 Per-Message DSN Fields ......................................11
2.2.1 The Original-Envelope-Id field ...........................11
2.2.2 The Reporting-MTA DSN field ..............................12
2.2.3 The DSN-Gateway field ....................................13
2.2.4 The Received-From-MTA DSN field ..........................14
2.2.5 The Arrival-Date DSN field ...............................14
2.3 Per-Recipient DSN fields ....................................14
2.3.1 Original-Recipient field .................................15
2.3.2 Final-Recipient field ....................................15
2.3.3 Action field .............................................16
2.3.4 Status field .............................................18
2.3.5 Remote-MTA field .........................................19
2.3.6 Diagnostic-Code field ....................................19
2.3.7 Last-Attempt-Date field ..................................20
2.3.8 final-log-id field .......................................20
2.3.9 Will-Retry-Until field ...................................20
2.4 Extension fields ............................................21
3. Conformance and Usage Requirements .............................22
4. Security Considerations ........................................23
4.1 Forgery .....................................................23
4.2 Confidentiality .............................................23
4.3 Non-Repudiation .............................................25
5. References .....................................................25
6. Acknowledgments ................................................26
Appendix A - Collected Grammar ....................................27
Appendix B - Guidelines for Gatewaying DSNS .......................29
Gatewaying from other mail systems to DSNs ......................29
Gatewaying from DSNs to other mail systems ......................30
Appendix C - Guidelines for Use of DSNS By Mailing List Exploders .30
Appendix D - IANA Registration Forms for DSN Types ................31
IANA registration form for address-type .........................32
IANA registration form for diagnostic-type ......................32
IANA registration form for MTA-name-type ........................32
Appendix E - Examples .............................................33
Simple DSN ......................................................34
Multi-Recipient DSN .............................................35
DSN from gateway to foreign system ..............................36
Delayed DSN .....................................................37
Appendix F - Changes from RFC 1894 ................................38
Authors' Addresses ................................................39
Full Copyright Statement ..........................................40
Delayed DSN .....................................................37
Appendix F - Changes from RFC 1894 ................................38
Authors' Addresses ................................................39
Full Copyright Statement ..........................................40
This memo defines a Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) [MIME1] content-type for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs). A DSN can be used to notify the sender of a message of any of several conditions: failed delivery, delayed delivery, successful delivery, or the gatewaying of a message into an environment that may not support DSNs. The "message/delivery-status" content-type defined herein is intended for use within the framework of the "multipart/report" content type defined in [REPORT].
此备忘录定义了传递状态通知（DSN）的多用途Internet邮件扩展（MIME）[MIME1]内容类型。DSN可用于将以下几种情况中的任何一种情况通知邮件的发件人：传递失败、传递延迟、传递成功，或将邮件网关传送到可能不支持DSN的环境中。此处定义的“消息/传递状态”内容类型旨在在[报告]中定义的“多部分/报告”内容类型的框架内使用。
This memo defines only the format of the notifications. An extension to the Simple Message Transfer Protocol (SMTP) [SMTP] to fully support such notifications is the subject of a separate memo [DRPT].
此备忘录仅定义通知的格式。对简单消息传输协议（SMTP）[SMTP]的扩展以完全支持此类通知是单独备忘录[DRPT]的主题。
Document Conventions
文件惯例
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照BCP 14、RFC 2119[RFC2119]中的说明进行解释。
The DSNs defined in this memo are expected to serve several purposes:
本备忘录中定义的DSN预计可用于多种用途：
(a) Inform human beings of the status of message delivery processing, as well as the reasons for any delivery problems or outright failures, in a manner that is largely independent of human language and media;
(a) 以基本上独立于人类语言和媒体的方式告知人类消息传递处理的状态，以及任何传递问题或彻底失败的原因；
(b) Allow mail user agents to keep track of the delivery status of messages sent, by associating returned DSNs with earlier message transmissions;
(b) 允许邮件用户代理通过将返回的DSN与较早的邮件传输关联起来，跟踪已发送邮件的传递状态；
(c) Allow mailing list exploders to automatically maintain their subscriber lists when delivery attempts repeatedly fail;
(c) 允许邮件列表分解器在发送尝试多次失败时自动维护其订户列表；
(d) Convey delivery and non-delivery notifications resulting from attempts to deliver messages to "foreign" mail systems via a gateway;
(d) 通过网关向“外国”邮件系统发送邮件的尝试产生的传递和未传递通知；
(e) Allow "foreign" notifications to be tunneled through a MIME-capable message system and back into the original messaging system that issued the original notification, or even to a third messaging system;
(e) 允许通过支持MIME的消息系统将“外来”通知隧道化，并返回到发出原始通知的原始消息系统，甚至第三个消息系统；
(f) Allow language-independent and medium-independent, yet reasonably precise, indications of the reason for the failure of a message to be delivered; and
(f) 允许独立于语言和媒介，但合理准确地指出信息未能传递的原因；和
(g) Provide sufficient information to remote MTA maintainers (via "trouble tickets") so that they can understand the nature of reported errors. This feature is used in the case that failure to deliver a message is due to the malfunction of a remote MTA and the sender wants to report the problem to the remote MTA administrator.
(g) 向远程MTA维护人员提供足够的信息（通过“故障单”），以便他们了解报告错误的性质。此功能用于由于远程MTA出现故障而无法传递邮件，并且发件人希望向远程MTA管理员报告此问题的情况。
These purposes place the following constraints on the notification protocol:
出于这些目的，通知协议受到以下限制：
(a) It must be readable by humans as well as being machine-parsable.
(a) 它必须是可读的人类以及机器可分析。
(b) It must provide enough information to allow message senders (or the user agents) to unambiguously associate a DSN with the message that was sent and the original recipient address for which the DSN is issued (if such information is available), even if the message was forwarded to another recipient address.
(b) 它必须提供足够的信息，使消息发送者（或用户代理）能够明确地将DSN与已发送的消息以及为其发出DSN的原始收件人地址相关联（如果此类信息可用），即使消息已转发到另一个收件人地址。
(c) It must be able to preserve the reason for the success or failure of a delivery attempt in a remote messaging system, using the "language" (mailbox addresses and status codes) of that remote system.
(c) 它必须能够使用远程消息传递系统的“语言”（邮箱地址和状态代码）保留远程消息传递系统中传递尝试成功或失败的原因。
(d) It must also be able to describe the reason for the success or failure of a delivery attempt, independent of any particular human language or of the "language" of any particular mail system.
(d) 它还必须能够描述投递成功或失败的原因，而不依赖于任何特定的人类语言或任何特定邮件系统的“语言”。
(e) It must preserve enough information to allow the maintainer of a remote MTA to understand (and if possible, reproduce) the conditions that caused a delivery failure at that MTA.
(e) 它必须保留足够的信息，以使远程MTA的维护人员能够理解（如果可能，再现）导致该MTA交付失败的条件。
(f) For any notifications issued by foreign mail systems, which are translated by a mail gateway to the DSN format, the DSN must preserve the "type" of the foreign addresses and error codes, so that these may be correctly interpreted by gateways.
(f) 对于由邮件网关转换为DSN格式的外部邮件系统发出的任何通知，DSN必须保留外部地址和错误代码的“类型”，以便网关能够正确解释这些信息。
A DSN contains a set of per-message fields that identify the message and the transaction during which the message was submitted, along with other fields that apply to all delivery attempts described by the DSN. The DSN also includes a set of per-recipient fields to convey the result of the attempt to deliver the message to each of one or more recipients.
DSN包含一组每消息字段，用于标识消息和提交消息期间的事务，以及适用于DSN描述的所有传递尝试的其他字段。DSN还包括一组每个收件人字段，用于将尝试向一个或多个收件人中的每个人传递消息的结果。
A message may be transmitted through several message transfer agents (MTAs) on its way to a recipient. For a variety of reasons, recipient addresses may be rewritten during this process, so each MTA may potentially see a different recipient address. Depending on the purpose for which a DSN is used, different formats of a particular recipient address will be needed.
一封邮件在发送给收件人的过程中可能会通过多个邮件传输代理（MTA）进行传输。由于各种原因，在此过程中可能会重写收件人地址，因此每个MTA可能会看到不同的收件人地址。根据使用DSN的目的，需要不同格式的特定收件人地址。
Several DSN fields are defined in terms of the view from a particular MTA in the transmission. The MTAs are assigned the following names:
根据传输中特定MTA的视图定义了几个DSN字段。MTA被分配以下名称：
(a) Original MTA
(a) 原始MTA
The Original MTA is the one to which the message is submitted for delivery by the sender of the message.
原始MTA是邮件的发件人将邮件提交到的MTA。
(b) Reporting MTA
(b) 报告MTA
For any DSN, the Reporting MTA is the one which is reporting the results of delivery attempts described in the DSN.
对于任何DSN，报告MTA都是报告DSN中描述的交付尝试结果的MTA。
If the delivery attempts described occurred in a "foreign" (non-Internet) mail system, and the DSN was produced by translating the foreign notice into DSN format, the Reporting MTA will still identify the "foreign" MTA where the delivery attempts occurred.
如果所述的投递尝试发生在“外国”（非互联网）邮件系统中，并且DSN是通过将外国通知转换为DSN格式生成的，则报告MTA仍将识别发生投递尝试的“外国”MTA。
(c) Received-From MTA
(c) 从MTA收到
The Received-From MTA is the MTA from which the Reporting MTA received the message, and accepted responsibility for delivery of the message.
Received From MTA是报告MTA从中接收邮件并接受邮件传递责任的MTA。
(d) Remote MTA
(d) 远程MTA
If an MTA determines that it must relay a message to one or more recipients, but the message cannot be transferred to its "next hop" MTA, or if the "next hop" MTA refuses to accept responsibility for delivery of the message to one or more of its intended recipients, the relaying MTA may need to issue a DSN on behalf of the recipients for whom the message cannot be
如果MTA确定必须将邮件转发给一个或多个收件人，但无法将邮件传输到其“下一跳”MTA，或者“下一跳”MTA拒绝承担将邮件传递给一个或多个预期收件人的责任，中继MTA可能需要代表无法接收邮件的收件人发出DSN
delivered. In this case the relaying MTA is the Reporting MTA, and the "next hop" MTA is known as the Remote MTA.
交付。在这种情况下，中继MTA是报告MTA，“下一跳”MTA称为远程MTA。
Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the various MTAs.
图1说明了各种MTA之间的关系。
+-----+ +--------+ +---------+ +---------+ +------+
| | | | |Received-| | | | |
| | => |Original| => ... => | From | => |Reporting| ===> |Remote|
| user| | MTA | | MTA | | MTA | <No! | MTA |
|agent| +--------+ +---------+ +----v----+ +------+
| | |
| | <-------------------------------------------+
+-----+ (DSN returned to sender by Reporting MTA)
+-----+ +--------+ +---------+ +---------+ +------+
| | | | |Received-| | | | |
| | => |Original| => ... => | From | => |Reporting| ===> |Remote|
| user| | MTA | | MTA | | MTA | <No! | MTA |
|agent| +--------+ +---------+ +----v----+ +------+
| | |
| | <-------------------------------------------+
+-----+ (DSN returned to sender by Reporting MTA)
Figure 1. Original, Received-From, Reporting and Remote MTAs
图1。原始MTA、从MTA收到的MTA、报告MTA和远程MTA
Each of these MTAs may provide information that is useful in a DSN:
每个MTA都可以提供DSN中有用的信息：
+ Ideally, the DSN will contain the address of each recipient as originally specified to the Original MTA by the sender of the message.
+ 理想情况下，DSN将包含邮件发件人最初向原始MTA指定的每个收件人的地址。
This version of the address is needed (rather than a forwarding address or some modified version of the original address) so that the sender may compare the recipient address in the DSN with the address in the sender's records (e.g., an address book for an individual, the list of subscribers for a mailing list) and take appropriate action.
需要此版本的地址（而不是转发地址或原始地址的某些修改版本），以便发件人可以将DSN中的收件人地址与发件人记录中的地址（例如，个人通讯簿、邮件列表的订户列表）进行比较，并采取适当的措施。
Similarly, the DSN might contain an "envelope identifier" that was known to both the sender's user agent and the Original MTA at the time of message submission, and which, if included in the DSN, can be used by the sender to keep track of which messages were or were not delivered.
类似地，DSN可能包含发件人的用户代理和原始MTA在邮件提交时都知道的“信封标识符”，如果DSN中包含该标识符，则发件人可以使用该标识符跟踪哪些邮件已送达或未送达。
+ If a message was (a) forwarded to a different address than that specified by the sender, (b) gatewayed to a different mail system than that used by the sender, or (c) subjected to address rewriting during transmission, the "final" form of the recipient address (i.e., the one seen by the Reporting MTA) will be different than the original (sender-specified) recipient address. Just as the sender's user agent (or the sender) prefers the original recipient address, so the "final" address is needed when reporting a problem to the postmaster of the site where message delivery failed, because only the final recipient address will allow her to reproduce the conditions that caused the failure.
+ 如果邮件（a）转发至不同于发件人指定的地址，（b）网关连接至不同于发件人使用的邮件系统，或（c）在传输过程中进行地址重写，则收件人地址的“最终”形式（即报告MTA看到的形式）将不同于原始形式（发件人指定的）收件人地址。正如发件人的用户代理（或发件人）更喜欢原始收件人地址一样，“最终”地址当向邮件传递失败的站点的邮局主管报告问题时，地址是必需的，因为只有最终的收件人地址才允许她重现导致失败的条件。
+ A "failed" DSN should contain the most accurate explanation for the delivery failure that is available. For ease of interpretation, this information should be a format that is independent of the mail transport system that issued the DSN. However, if a foreign error code is translated into some transport-independent format, some information may be lost. It is therefore desirable to provide both a transport-independent status code and a mechanism for reporting transport-specific codes. Depending on the circumstances that produced delivery failure, the transport-specific code might be obtained from either the Reporting MTA or the Remote MTA.
+ “失败”DSN应包含可用的关于交付失败的最准确解释。为便于解释，此信息的格式应独立于发出DSN的邮件传输系统。但是，如果将外部错误代码转换为与传输无关的格式，则可能会丢失一些信息。因此，需要提供独立于传输的状态代码和报告传输特定代码的机制。根据导致传递失败的情况，可以从报告MTA或远程MTA获取特定于传输的代码。
Since different values for "recipient address" and "delivery status code" are needed according to the circumstance in which a DSN will be used, and since the MTA that issues the DSN cannot anticipate those circumstances, the DSN format described here may contain both the original and final forms of a recipient address, and both a transport-independent and a transport-specific indication of delivery status.
由于“收件人地址”和“交付状态代码”的不同值需要根据DSN的使用情况而定，并且由于发布DSN的MTA无法预测这些情况，因此此处描述的DSN格式可能包含收件人地址的原始格式和最终格式，以及运输独立和运输特定的交付状态指示。
Extension fields may also be added by the Reporting MTA as needed to provide additional information for use in a trouble ticket or to preserve information for tunneling of foreign delivery reports through Internet DSNs.
报告MTA还可以根据需要添加扩展字段，以提供故障通知单中使用的附加信息，或保留通过Internet DSN传输国外交付报告的信息。
The Original, Reporting, and Remote MTAs may exist in very different environments and use dissimilar transport protocols, MTA names, address formats, and delivery status codes. DSNs therefore do not assume any particular format for mailbox addresses, MTA names, or transport-specific status codes. Instead, the various DSN fields that carry such quantities consist of a "type" sub-field followed by a sub-field whose contents are ordinary text characters, and the format of which is indicated by the "type" sub-field. This allows a DSN to convey these quantities regardless of format.
原始MTA、报告MTA和远程MTA可能存在于非常不同的环境中，并使用不同的传输协议、MTA名称、地址格式和传递状态代码。因此，DSN不对邮箱地址、MTA名称或特定于传输的状态代码采用任何特定格式。相反，携带此类数量的各种DSN字段由一个“类型”子字段和一个内容为普通文本字符的子字段组成，其格式由“类型”子字段指示。这使得DSN可以传输这些数量，而不考虑格式。
A DSN is a MIME message with a top-level content-type of multipart/report (defined in [REPORT]). When a multipart/report content is used to transmit a DSN:
DSN是一种MIME消息，其顶级内容类型为multipart/report（在[report]中定义）。当使用多部分/报告内容传输DSN时：
(a) The report-type parameter of the multipart/report content is "delivery-status".
(a) 多部分/报表内容的报表类型参数为“交货状态”。
(b) The first component of the multipart/report contains a human-readable explanation of the DSN, as described in [REPORT].
(b) 多部分/报告的第一个组件包含DSN的可读解释，如[报告]中所述。
(c) The second component of the multipart/report is of content-type message/delivery-status, described in section 2.1 of this document.
(c) 多部分/报告的第二个组件为内容类型消息/交付状态，如本文件第2.1节所述。
(d) If the original message or a portion of the message is to be returned to the sender, it appears as the third component of the multipart/report.
(d) 如果要将原始邮件或邮件的一部分返回给发件人，则它将显示为多部分/报告的第三个组件。
NOTE: For delivery status notifications gatewayed from foreign systems, the headers of the original message may not be available. In this case the third component of the DSN may be omitted, or it may contain "simulated" RFC 822 headers that contain equivalent information. In particular, it is very desirable to preserve the subject, date, and message-id (or equivalent) fields from the original message.
注意：对于从外部系统通过网关发送的传递状态通知，原始邮件的标题可能不可用。在这种情况下，可以省略DSN的第三个组件，或者它可以包含包含等效信息的“模拟”rfc822报头。特别是，从原始消息中保留主题、日期和消息id（或等效项）字段是非常可取的。
The DSN MUST be addressed (in both the message header and the transport envelope) to the return address from the transport envelope which accompanied the original message for which the DSN was generated. (For a message that arrived via SMTP, the envelope return address appears in the MAIL FROM command.)
DSN的地址（在消息头和传输信封中）必须与为其生成DSN的原始消息附带的传输信封的返回地址一致。（对于通过SMTP到达的邮件，信封返回地址显示在“邮件发件人”命令中。）
The From field of the message header of the DSN SHOULD contain the address of a human who is responsible for maintaining the mail system at the Reporting MTA site (e.g., Postmaster), so that a reply to the DSN will reach that person. Exception: if a DSN is translated from a foreign delivery report, and the gateway performing the translation cannot determine the appropriate address, the From field of the DSN MAY be the address of a human who is responsible for maintaining the gateway.
DSN邮件头的“发件人”字段应包含负责在报告MTA站点维护邮件系统的人员的地址（例如，邮局主管），以便该人员收到对DSN的回复。例外情况：如果DSN是从国外交付报告翻译过来的，并且执行翻译的网关无法确定适当的地址，则DSN的“发件人”字段可能是负责维护网关的人员的地址。
The envelope sender address of the DSN SHOULD be chosen to ensure that no delivery status reports will be issued in response to the DSN itself, and MUST be chosen so that DSNs will not generate mail loops. Whenever an SMTP transaction is used to send a DSN, the MAIL FROM command MUST use a NULL return address, i.e., "MAIL FROM:<>".
应选择DSN的信封发送者地址，以确保不会发出任何传递状态报告来响应DSN本身，并且必须选择该地址，以便DSN不会生成邮件循环。每当使用SMTP事务发送DSN时，MAIL FROM命令必须使用空返回地址，即“MAIL FROM:<>”。
A particular DSN describes the delivery status for exactly one message. However, an MTA MAY report on the delivery status for several recipients of the same message in a single DSN. Due to the nature of the mail transport system (where responsibility for delivery of a message to its recipients may be split among several MTAs, and delivery to any particular recipient may be delayed), multiple DSNs may still be issued in response to a single message submission.
特定DSN仅描述一条消息的传递状态。但是，MTA可能会报告单个DSN中同一邮件的多个收件人的传递状态。由于邮件传输系统的性质（向其收件人发送邮件的责任可能由多个MTA分担，向任何特定收件人发送邮件的责任可能会延迟），仍可能针对单个邮件提交发出多个DSN。
The message/delivery-status content-type is defined as follows:
消息/传递状态内容类型定义如下：
MIME type name: message MIME subtype name: delivery-status Optional parameters: none Encoding considerations: "7bit" encoding is sufficient and MUST be used to maintain readability when viewed by non-MIME mail readers. Security considerations: discussed in section 4 of this memo.
MIME类型名称：消息MIME子类型名称：传递状态可选参数：无编码注意事项：“7bit”编码已足够，必须用于在非MIME邮件阅读器查看时保持可读性。安全注意事项：在本备忘录第4节中讨论。
The message/delivery-status report type for use in the multipart/report is "delivery-status".
在多部分/报告中使用的消息/传递状态报告类型为“传递状态”。
The body of a message/delivery-status consists of one or more "fields" formatted according to the ABNF of RFC 822 header "fields" (see [RFC822]). The per-message fields appear first, followed by a blank line. Following the per-message fields are one or more groups of per-recipient fields. Each group of per-recipient fields is preceded by a blank line. Using the ABNF of RFC 822, the syntax of the message/delivery-status content is as follows:
消息/传递状态的正文由一个或多个“字段”组成，这些“字段”根据RFC 822标题“字段”的ABNF进行格式化（参见[RFC822]）。每条消息字段首先显示，然后是一个空行。每封邮件字段后面是一组或多组每收件人字段。每组每个收件人字段前面都有一个空行。使用RFC 822的ABNF，消息/传递状态内容的语法如下：
delivery-status-content = per-message-fields 1* ( CRLF per-recipient-fields )
传递状态内容=每个邮件字段1*（每个收件人字段的CRLF）
The per-message fields are described in section 2.2. The per-recipient fields are described in section 2.3.
第2.2节描述了每消息字段。第2.3节介绍了每个收件人字段。
Since these fields are defined according to the rules of RFC 822, the same conventions for continuation lines and comments apply. Notification fields may be continued onto multiple lines by beginning each additional line with a SPACE or HTAB. Text that appears in parentheses is considered a comment and not part of the contents of that notification field. Field names are case-insensitive, so the names of notification fields may be spelled in any combination of upper and lower case letters. Comments in DSN fields may use the "encoded-word" construct defined in [MIME3].
由于这些字段是根据RFC 822的规则定义的，因此连续行和注释的约定相同。通过在每一行的开头加上空格或HTAB，通知字段可以延续到多行。括号中出现的文本被视为注释，而不是通知字段内容的一部分。字段名不区分大小写，因此通知字段的名称可以用大写和小写字母的任意组合拼写。DSN字段中的注释可以使用[MIME3]中定义的“编码字”结构。
Several DSN fields consist of a "-type" sub-field, followed by a semicolon, followed by "*text". For these fields, the keyword used in the address-type, diagnostic-type, or MTA-name-type sub-field indicates the expected format of the address, status-code, or MTA-name which follows.
几个DSN字段由“-type”子字段组成，后跟分号，后跟“*text”。对于这些字段，“地址类型”、“诊断类型”或“MTA名称类型”子字段中使用的关键字表示后面的地址、状态代码或MTA名称的预期格式。
The "-type" sub-fields are defined as follows:
“-type”子字段定义如下：
(a) An "address-type" specifies the format of a mailbox address. For example, Internet mail addresses use the "rfc822" address-type.
(a) “地址类型”指定邮箱地址的格式。例如，Internet邮件地址使用“rfc822”地址类型。
address-type = atom
address-type = atom
(b) A "diagnostic-type" specifies the format of a status code. For example, when a DSN field contains a reply code reported via the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol [SMTP], the "smtp" diagnostic-type is used.
(b) “诊断类型”指定状态代码的格式。例如，当DSN字段包含通过简单邮件传输协议[SMTP]报告的回复代码时，将使用“SMTP”诊断类型。
diagnostic-type = atom
diagnostic-type = atom
(c) An "MTA-name-type" specifies the format of an MTA name. For example, for an SMTP server on an Internet host, the MTA name is the domain name of that host, and the "dns" MTA-name-type is used.
(c) “MTA名称类型”指定MTA名称的格式。例如，对于Internet主机上的SMTP服务器，MTA名称是该主机的域名，并使用“dns”MTA名称类型。
mta-name-type = atom
mta-name-type = atom
Values for address-type, diagnostic-type, and MTA-name-type are case-insensitive. Thus address-type values of "RFC822" and "rfc822" are equivalent.
地址类型、诊断类型和MTA名称类型的值不区分大小写。因此，“RFC822”和“RFC822”的地址类型值是等效的。
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) will maintain a registry of address-types, diagnostic-types, and MTA-name-types, along with descriptions of the meanings and acceptable values of each, or a reference to one or more specifications that provide such descriptions. (The "rfc822" address-type, "smtp" diagnostic-type, and "dns" MTA-name-type are defined in [DRPT].) Registration forms for address-type, diagnostic-type, and MTA-name-type appear in Appendix D.
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority（IANA）将维护地址类型、诊断类型和MTA名称类型的注册表，以及每个类型的含义和可接受值的说明，或提供此类说明的一个或多个规范的参考。（在[DRPT]中定义了“rfc822”地址类型、“smtp”诊断类型和“dns”MTA名称类型。）地址类型、诊断类型和MTA名称类型的注册表格见附录D。
IANA will not accept registrations for any address-type, diagnostic-type, or MTA-name-type name that begins with "X-". These type names are reserved for experimental use.
IANA不接受以“X-”开头的任何地址类型、诊断类型或MTA名称类型的注册。这些类型名称保留供实验使用。
The following lexical tokens, defined in [RFC822], are used in the ABNF grammar for DSNs: atom, CHAR, comment, CR, CRLF, DIGIT, LF, linear-white-space, SPACE, text. The date-time lexical token is defined in [HOSTREQ].
[RFC822]中定义的以下词汇标记用于DSN的ABNF语法：原子、字符、注释、CR、CRLF、数字、LF、线性空白、空格、文本。日期-时间词汇标记在[HOSTREQ]中定义。
Some fields of a DSN apply to all of the delivery attempts described by that DSN. At most, these fields may appear once in any DSN. These fields are used to correlate the DSN with the original message transaction and to provide additional information which may be useful to gateways.
DSN的某些字段适用于该DSN描述的所有传递尝试。在任何DSN中，这些字段最多只能出现一次。这些字段用于将DSN与原始消息事务关联起来，并提供可能对网关有用的附加信息。
per-message-fields =
[ original-envelope-id-field CRLF ]
reporting-mta-field CRLF
[ dsn-gateway-field CRLF ]
[ received-from-mta-field CRLF ]
[ arrival-date-field CRLF ]
*( extension-field CRLF )
per-message-fields =
[ original-envelope-id-field CRLF ]
reporting-mta-field CRLF
[ dsn-gateway-field CRLF ]
[ received-from-mta-field CRLF ]
[ arrival-date-field CRLF ]
*( extension-field CRLF )
The optional Original-Envelope-Id field contains an "envelope identifier" that uniquely identifies the transaction during which the message was submitted, and was either (a) specified by the sender and supplied to the sender's MTA, or (b) generated by the sender's MTA and made available to the sender when the message was submitted. Its purpose is to allow the sender (or her user agent) to associate the returned DSN with the specific transaction in which the message was sent.
可选的“原始信封Id”字段包含一个“信封标识符”，该标识符唯一标识提交邮件期间的交易，它可以是（a）由发件人指定并提供给发件人的MTA，或者（b）由发件人的MTA生成并在提交邮件时提供给发件人。其目的是允许发送方（或其用户代理）将返回的DSN与发送消息的特定事务相关联。
If such an envelope identifier was present in the envelope that accompanied the message when it arrived at the Reporting MTA, it SHOULD be supplied in the Original-Envelope-Id field of any DSNs issued as a result of an attempt to deliver the message. Except when a DSN is issued by the sender's MTA, an MTA MUST NOT supply this field unless there is an envelope-identifier field in the envelope that accompanied this message on its arrival at the Reporting MTA.
如果邮件到达报告MTA时随附的信封中存在此类信封标识符，则应在因尝试传递邮件而发出的任何DSN的原始信封Id字段中提供该标识符。除非DSN是由发件人的MTA发出的，否则MTA不得提供此字段，除非此邮件到达报告MTA时随附的信封中有信封标识符字段。
The Original-Envelope-Id field is defined as follows:
原始信封Id字段定义如下：
original-envelope-id-field = "Original-Envelope-Id" ":" envelope-id
原始信封id字段=“原始信封id”“：”信封id
envelope-id = *text
envelope-id = *text
There may be at most one Original-Envelope-Id field per DSN.
每个DSN最多可以有一个原始信封Id字段。
The envelope-id is CASE-SENSITIVE. The DSN MUST preserve the original case and spelling of the envelope-id.
信封id区分大小写。DSN必须保留信封id的原始大小写和拼写。
NOTE: The Original-Envelope-Id is NOT the same as the Message-Id from the message header. The Message-Id identifies the content of the message, while the Original-Envelope-Id identifies the transaction in which the message is sent.
注意：原始信封Id与消息头中的消息Id不同。消息Id标识消息的内容，而原始信封Id标识发送消息的事务。
reporting-mta-field = "Reporting-MTA" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name
报告mta字段=“报告mta”“：“mta名称类型”；“mta名称”
mta-name = *text
mta-name = *text
The Reporting-MTA field is defined as follows:
报告MTA字段定义如下：
A DSN describes the results of attempts to deliver, relay, or gateway a message to one or more recipients. In all cases, the Reporting-MTA is the MTA that attempted to perform the delivery, relay, or gateway operation described in the DSN. This field is required.
DSN描述尝试向一个或多个收件人传递、中继或网关消息的结果。在所有情况下，报告MTA都是尝试执行DSN中描述的传递、中继或网关操作的MTA。此字段必填。
Note that if an SMTP client attempts to relay a message to an SMTP server and receives an error reply to a RCPT command, the client is responsible for generating the DSN, and the client's domain name will appear in the Reporting-MTA field. (The server's domain name will appear in the Remote-MTA field.)
请注意，如果SMTP客户端尝试将邮件中继到SMTP服务器并收到对RCPT命令的错误回复，则该客户端负责生成DSN，并且该客户端的域名将显示在“报告MTA”字段中。（服务器的域名将显示在远程MTA字段中。）
Note that the Reporting-MTA is not necessarily the MTA which actually issued the DSN. For example, if an attempt to deliver a message outside of the Internet resulted in a non-delivery notification which was gatewayed back into Internet mail, the Reporting-MTA field of the resulting DSN would be that of the MTA that originally reported the delivery failure, not that of the gateway which converted the foreign notification into a DSN. See Figure 2.
请注意，报告MTA不一定是实际发出DSN的MTA。例如，如果尝试在Internet之外传递邮件导致未送达通知被网关传回Internet邮件，则生成的DSN的报告MTA字段将是最初报告传递失败的MTA字段，而不是将外部通知转换为DSN的网关。参见图2。
sender's environment recipient's environment
............................ ..........................................
: :
(1) : : (2)
+-----+ +--------+ +--------+ +---------+ +---------+ +------+
| | | | | | |Received-| | | | |
| |=>|Original|=>| |->| From |->|Reporting|-->|Remote|
| user| | MTA | | | | MTA | | MTA |<No| MTA |
|agent| +--------+ |Gateway | +---------+ +----v----+ +------+
| | | | |
| | <============| |<-------------------+
+-----+ | |(4) (3)
+--------+
: :
...........................: :.........................................
sender's environment recipient's environment
............................ ..........................................
: :
(1) : : (2)
+-----+ +--------+ +--------+ +---------+ +---------+ +------+
| | | | | | |Received-| | | | |
| |=>|Original|=>| |->| From |->|Reporting|-->|Remote|
| user| | MTA | | | | MTA | | MTA |<No| MTA |
|agent| +--------+ |Gateway | +---------+ +----v----+ +------+
| | | | |
| | <============| |<-------------------+
+-----+ | |(4) (3)
+--------+
: :
...........................: :.........................................
Figure 2. DSNs in the presence of gateways
图2。存在网关的DSN
(1) message is gatewayed into recipient's environment (2) attempt to relay message fails (3) reporting-mta (in recipient's environment) returns non-delivery notification (4) gateway translates foreign notification into a DSN
(1) 邮件通过网关进入收件人环境（2）尝试中继邮件失败（3）报告mta（在收件人环境中）返回未送达通知（4）网关将外部通知转换为DSN
The mta-name portion of the Reporting-MTA field is formatted according to the conventions indicated by the mta-name-type sub-field. If an MTA functions as a gateway between dissimilar mail environments and thus is known by multiple names depending on the environment, the mta-name sub-field SHOULD contain the name used by the environment from which the message was accepted by the Reporting-MTA.
报告mta字段的mta名称部分根据mta名称类型子字段指示的约定进行格式设置。如果MTA充当不同邮件环境之间的网关，因此根据环境的不同可以有多个名称，则MTA名称子字段应包含报告MTA从中接收邮件的环境所使用的名称。
Because the exact spelling of an MTA name may be significant in a particular environment, MTA names are CASE-SENSITIVE.
由于MTA名称的准确拼写在特定环境中可能非常重要，因此MTA名称区分大小写。
The DSN-Gateway field indicates the name of the gateway or MTA that translated a foreign (non-Internet) delivery status notification into this DSN. This field MUST appear in any DSN that was translated by a gateway from a foreign system into DSN format, and MUST NOT appear otherwise.
DSN网关字段表示将外部（非Internet）传递状态通知转换为此DSN的网关或MTA的名称。此字段必须出现在网关从外部系统转换为DSN格式的任何DSN中，否则不得出现。
dsn-gateway-field = "DSN-Gateway" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name
dsn-gateway-field = "DSN-Gateway" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name
For gateways into Internet mail, the MTA-name-type will normally be "dns", and the mta-name will be the Internet domain name of the gateway.
对于进入Internet邮件的网关，MTA名称类型通常为“dns”，MTA名称为网关的Internet域名。
The optional Received-From-MTA field indicates the name of the MTA from which the message was received.
可选的Received From MTA字段表示从中接收邮件的MTA的名称。
received-from-mta-field = "Received-From-MTA" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name
从mta接收字段=“从mta接收”：“mta名称类型”；“mta名称”
If the message was received from an Internet host via SMTP, the contents of the mta-name sub-field SHOULD be the Internet domain name supplied in the HELO or EHLO command, and the network address used by the SMTP client SHOULD be included as a comment enclosed in parentheses. (In this case, the MTA-name-type will be "dns".)
如果通过SMTP从Internet主机接收邮件，“mta名称”子字段的内容应为HELO或EHLO命令中提供的Internet域名，并且SMTP客户端使用的网络地址应包含在括号中的注释中。（在本例中，MTA名称类型将为“dns”。）
The mta-name portion of the Received-From-MTA field is formatted according to the conventions indicated by the MTA-name-type sub-field.
“从mta接收”字段的mta名称部分根据mta名称类型子字段指示的约定进行格式化。
Since case is significant in some mail systems, the exact spelling, including case, of the MTA name SHOULD be preserved.
由于大小写在某些邮件系统中很重要，因此应保留MTA名称的准确拼写，包括大小写。
The optional Arrival-Date field indicates the date and time at which the message arrived at the Reporting MTA. If the Last-Attempt-Date field is also provided in a per-recipient field, this can be used to determine the interval between when the message arrived at the Reporting MTA and when the report was issued for that recipient.
可选的到达日期字段表示邮件到达报告MTA的日期和时间。如果“每收件人”字段中还提供了“上次尝试日期”字段，则可使用该字段确定邮件到达报告MTA与为该收件人发布报告之间的间隔。
arrival-date-field = "Arrival-Date" ":" date-time
到达日期字段=“到达日期”：“日期时间”
The date and time are expressed in RFC 822 'date-time' format, as modified by [HOSTREQ]. Numeric timezones ([+/-]HHMM format) MUST be used.
日期和时间以RFC 822“日期-时间”格式表示，由[HOSTREQ]修改。必须使用数字时区（[+/-]HHMM格式）。
A DSN contains information about attempts to deliver a message to one or more recipients. The delivery information for any particular recipient is contained in a group of contiguous per-recipient fields. Each group of per-recipient fields is preceded by a blank line.
DSN包含有关尝试将邮件传递给一个或多个收件人的信息。任何特定收件人的传递信息都包含在一组连续的每个收件人字段中。每组每个收件人字段前面都有一个空行。
The syntax for the group of per-recipient fields is as follows:
每个收件人字段组的语法如下所示：
per-recipient-fields =
[ original-recipient-field CRLF ]
final-recipient-field CRLF
action-field CRLF
status-field CRLF
[ remote-mta-field CRLF ]
[ diagnostic-code-field CRLF ]
[ last-attempt-date-field CRLF ]
[ final-log-id-field CRLF ]
[ will-retry-until-field CRLF ]
*( extension-field CRLF )
per-recipient-fields =
[ original-recipient-field CRLF ]
final-recipient-field CRLF
action-field CRLF
status-field CRLF
[ remote-mta-field CRLF ]
[ diagnostic-code-field CRLF ]
[ last-attempt-date-field CRLF ]
[ final-log-id-field CRLF ]
[ will-retry-until-field CRLF ]
*( extension-field CRLF )
The Original-Recipient field indicates the original recipient address as specified by the sender of the message for which the DSN is being issued.
“原始收件人”字段表示为其发出DSN的邮件的发件人指定的原始收件人地址。
original-recipient-field = "Original-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-address
原始收件人字段=“原始收件人”“：“地址类型”；“一般地址”
generic-address = *text
generic-address = *text
The address-type field indicates the type of the original recipient address. If the message originated within the Internet, the address-type field will normally be "rfc822", and the address will be according to the syntax specified in [RFC822]. The value "unknown" should be used if the Reporting MTA cannot determine the type of the original recipient address from the message envelope.
地址类型字段指示原始收件人地址的类型。如果消息来源于互联网，地址类型字段通常为“rfc822”，地址将符合[rfc822]中指定的语法。如果报告MTA无法从邮件信封中确定原始收件人地址的类型，则应使用值“unknown”。
This field is optional. It should be included only if the sender-specified recipient address was present in the message envelope, such as by the SMTP extensions defined in [DRPT]. This address is the same as that provided by the sender and can be used to automatically correlate DSN reports and message transactions.
此字段是可选的。仅当发件人指定的收件人地址存在于邮件信封中时，如[DRPT]中定义的SMTP扩展，才应包含该地址。此地址与发件人提供的地址相同，可用于自动关联DSN报告和邮件事务。
The Final-Recipient field indicates the recipient for which this set of per-recipient fields applies. This field MUST be present in each set of per-recipient data.
“最终收件人”字段表示此“每收件人”字段集适用的收件人。此字段必须出现在每组每个收件人的数据中。
The syntax of the field is as follows:
该字段的语法如下所示：
final-recipient-field = "Final-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-address
最终收件人字段=“最终收件人”“：“地址类型”；“一般地址”
The generic-address sub-field of the Final-Recipient field MUST contain the mailbox address of the recipient (from the transport envelope), as it was when the Reporting MTA accepted the message for delivery.
“最终收件人”字段的“通用地址”子字段必须包含收件人的邮箱地址（来自传输信封），就像报告MTA接受邮件进行传递时一样。
The Final-Recipient address may differ from the address originally provided by the sender, because it may have been transformed during forwarding and gatewaying into a totally unrecognizable mess. However, in the absence of the optional Original-Recipient field, the Final-Recipient field and any returned content may be the only information available with which to correlate the DSN with a particular message submission.
最终收件人地址可能与发件人最初提供的地址不同，因为它可能在转发和网关过程中被转换为完全无法识别的混乱状态。但是，在缺少可选的原始收件人字段的情况下，最终收件人字段和任何返回的内容可能是将DSN与特定邮件提交关联起来的唯一可用信息。
The address-type sub-field indicates the type of address expected by the reporting MTA in that context. Recipient addresses obtained via SMTP will normally be of address-type "rfc822".
“地址类型”子字段表示报告MTA在该上下文中预期的地址类型。通过SMTP获得的收件人地址通常为地址类型“rfc822”。
NOTE: The Reporting MTA is not expected to ensure that the address actually conforms to the syntax conventions of the address-type. Instead, it MUST report exactly the address received in the envelope, unless that address contains characters such as CR or LF which are not allowed in a DSN field.
注意：报告MTA不应确保地址实际符合地址类型的语法约定。相反，它必须准确地报告信封中收到的地址，除非该地址包含DSN字段中不允许的字符，如CR或LF。
Since mailbox addresses (including those used in the Internet) may be case sensitive, the case of alphabetic characters in the address MUST be preserved.
由于邮箱地址（包括Internet中使用的邮箱地址）可能区分大小写，因此必须保留地址中字母字符的大小写。
The Action field indicates the action performed by the Reporting-MTA as a result of its attempt to deliver the message to this recipient address. This field MUST be present for each recipient named in the DSN.
“操作”字段表示报告MTA尝试将邮件传递到此收件人地址时执行的操作。对于DSN中指定的每个收件人，此字段必须存在。
The syntax for the action-field is:
操作字段的语法为：
action-field = "Action" ":" action-value
action field=“action”“：”操作值
action-value =
"failed" / "delayed" / "delivered" / "relayed" / "expanded"
action-value =
"failed" / "delayed" / "delivered" / "relayed" / "expanded"
The action-value may be spelled in any combination of upper and lower case characters.
动作值可以用大写和小写字符的任意组合拼写。
"failed" indicates that the message could not be delivered to the recipient. The Reporting MTA has abandoned any attempts to deliver the message to this recipient. No further notifications should be expected.
“失败”表示无法将邮件传递给收件人。报告MTA已放弃将邮件传递到此收件人的任何尝试。预计不会有进一步的通知。
"delayed" indicates that the Reporting MTA has so far been unable to deliver or relay the message, but it will continue to attempt to do so. Additional notification messages may be issued as the message is further delayed or successfully delivered, or if delivery attempts are later abandoned.
“延迟”表示报告MTA到目前为止无法传递或中继邮件，但它将继续尝试这样做。如果消息进一步延迟或成功传递，或者稍后放弃传递尝试，则可能会发出其他通知消息。
"delivered" indicates that the message was successfully delivered to the recipient address specified by the sender, which includes "delivery" to a mailing list exploder. It does not indicate that the message has been read. This is a terminal state and no further DSN for this recipient should be expected.
“已传递”表示邮件已成功传递到发件人指定的收件人地址，其中包括“传递”到邮件列表分解器。它并不表示消息已被读取。这是一个终端状态，不应期望此收件人有更多的DSN。
"relayed" indicates that the message has been relayed or gatewayed into an environment that does not accept responsibility for generating DSNs upon successful delivery. This action-value SHOULD NOT be used unless the sender has requested notification of successful delivery for this recipient.
“中继”表示消息已中继或通过网关传送到一个环境中，该环境不承担在成功传递后生成DSN的责任。除非发件人已请求通知此收件人成功传递，否则不应使用此操作值。
"expanded" indicates that the message has been successfully delivered to the recipient address as specified by the sender, and forwarded by the Reporting-MTA beyond that destination to multiple additional recipient addresses. An action-value of "expanded" differs from "delivered" in that "expanded" is not a terminal state. Further "failed" and/or "delayed" notifications may be provided.
“扩展”表示邮件已成功传递到发件人指定的收件人地址，并由报告MTA转发到该目标以外的多个其他收件人地址。“已扩展”的操作值与“已交付”的不同之处在于“已扩展”不是终端状态。可提供进一步的“失败”和/或“延迟”通知。
Using the terms "mailing list" and "alias" as defined in [DRPT], section 7.2.7: An action-value of "expanded" is only to be used when the message is delivered to a multiple-recipient "alias". An action-value of "expanded" SHOULD NOT be used with a DSN issued on delivery of a message to a "mailing list".
使用[DRPT]中定义的术语“邮件列表”和“别名”，第7.2.7节：仅当消息传递给多个收件人“别名”时，才使用“扩展”的操作值。“扩展”的操作值不应与向“邮件列表”发送邮件时发出的DSN一起使用。
NOTE ON ACTION VS. STATUS CODES: Although the 'action' field might seem to be redundant with the 'status' field, this is not the case. In particular, a "temporary failure" ("4") status code could be used with an action-value of either "delayed" or "failed". For example, assume that an SMTP client repeatedly tries to relay a message to the mail exchanger for a recipient, but fails because a query to a domain name server timed out.
关于操作与状态代码的说明：尽管“操作”字段似乎与“状态”字段冗余，但情况并非如此。特别是，“临时故障”（“4”）状态代码可以与“延迟”或“失败”的操作值一起使用。例如，假设SMTP客户端反复尝试将邮件中继到收件人的邮件交换器，但由于对域名服务器的查询超时而失败。
After a few hours, it might issue a "delayed" DSN to inform the sender that the message had not yet been delivered. After a few days, the MTA might abandon its attempt to deliver the message and return a "failed" DSN. The status code (which would begin with a "4" to indicate "temporary failure") would be the same for both DSNs.
几个小时后，它可能会发出一个“延迟”DSN，通知发件人消息尚未送达。几天后，MTA可能会放弃传递邮件的尝试，并返回“失败”的DSN。两个DSN的状态代码（以“4”开头表示“临时故障”）相同。
Another example for which the action and status codes may appear contradictory: If an MTA or mail gateway cannot deliver a message because doing so would entail conversions resulting in an unacceptable loss of information, it would issue a DSN with the 'action' field of "failure" and a status code of 'XXX'. If the message had instead been relayed, but with some loss of information, it might generate a DSN with the same XXX status-code, but with an action field of "relayed".
另一个操作代码和状态代码可能相互矛盾的示例：如果MTA或邮件网关无法传递邮件，因为这样做会导致转换，导致不可接受的信息丢失，那么它将发出一个DSN，其中“操作”字段为“失败”，状态代码为“XXX”。如果改为中继消息，但信息丢失，则可能生成具有相同XXX状态代码的DSN，但操作字段为“中继”。
The per-recipient Status field contains a transport-independent status code that indicates the delivery status of the message to that recipient. This field MUST be present for each delivery attempt which is described by a DSN.
“每个收件人状态”字段包含独立于传输的状态代码，该代码指示邮件发送给该收件人的传递状态。对于DSN描述的每次交付尝试，此字段必须存在。
The syntax of the status field is:
状态字段的语法为：
status-field = "Status" ":" status-code
状态字段=“状态”“：”状态代码
status-code = DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT
status-code = DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT
; White-space characters and comments are NOT allowed within
; a status-code, though a comment enclosed in parentheses
; MAY follow the last numeric sub-field of the status-code.
; Each numeric sub-field within the status-code MUST be
; expressed without leading zero digits.
; White-space characters and comments are NOT allowed within
; a status-code, though a comment enclosed in parentheses
; MAY follow the last numeric sub-field of the status-code.
; Each numeric sub-field within the status-code MUST be
; expressed without leading zero digits.
Status codes thus consist of three numerical fields separated by ".". The first sub-field indicates whether the delivery attempt was successful (2= success, 4 = persistent temporary failure, 5 = permanent failure). The second sub-field indicates the probable source of any delivery anomalies, and the third sub-field denotes a precise error condition, if known.
因此，状态代码由三个以“.”分隔的数字字段组成。第一个子字段指示传递尝试是否成功（2=成功，4=持续临时失败，5=永久失败）。第二个子字段表示任何交付异常的可能来源，第三个子字段表示精确的错误条件（如果已知）。
The initial set of status-codes is defined in [STATUS].
初始状态代码集在[状态]中定义。
The value associated with the Remote-MTA DSN field is a printable ASCII representation of the name of the "remote" MTA that reported delivery status to the "reporting" MTA.
与远程MTA DSN字段关联的值是“远程”MTA名称的可打印ASCII表示形式，该MTA向“报告”MTA报告传递状态。
remote-mta-field = "Remote-MTA" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name
remote-mta-field = "Remote-MTA" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name
NOTE: The Remote-MTA field preserves the "while talking to" information that was provided in some pre-existing nondelivery reports.
注意：Remote MTA字段保留了某些预先存在的非交付报告中提供的“通话时”信息。
This field is optional. It MUST NOT be included if no remote MTA was involved in the attempted delivery of the message to that recipient.
此字段是可选的。如果尝试将邮件传递给该收件人时未涉及任何远程MTA，则不得包含该邮件。
For a "failed" or "delayed" recipient, the Diagnostic-Code DSN field contains the actual diagnostic code issued by the mail transport. Since such codes vary from one mail transport to another, the diagnostic-type sub-field is needed to specify which type of diagnostic code is represented.
对于“失败”或“延迟”收件人，诊断代码DSN字段包含邮件传输发出的实际诊断代码。由于这些代码在不同的邮件传输中有所不同，因此需要“诊断类型”子字段来指定所表示的诊断代码类型。
diagnostic-code-field =
"Diagnostic-Code" ":" diagnostic-type ";" *text
diagnostic-code-field =
"Diagnostic-Code" ":" diagnostic-type ";" *text
NOTE: The information in the Diagnostic-Code field may be somewhat redundant with that from the Status field. The Status field is needed so that any DSN, regardless of origin, may be understood by any user agent or gateway that parses DSNs. Since the Status code will sometimes be less precise than the actual transport diagnostic code, the Diagnostic-Code field is provided to retain the latter information. Such information may be useful in a trouble ticket sent to the administrator of the Reporting MTA, or when tunneling foreign non-delivery reports through DSNs.
注意：诊断代码字段中的信息可能与状态字段中的信息有些冗余。需要Status字段，以便解析DSN的任何用户代理或网关都可以理解任何DSN，无论其来源如何。由于状态代码有时不如实际的运输诊断代码精确，因此提供诊断代码字段以保留后一信息。此类信息在发送给报告MTA管理员的故障通知单中，或在通过DSN挖掘外部未送达报告时可能很有用。
If the Diagnostic Code was obtained from a Remote MTA during an attempt to relay the message to that MTA, the Remote-MTA field should be present. When interpreting a DSN, the presence of a Remote-MTA field indicates that the Diagnostic Code was issued by the Remote MTA. The absence of a Remote-MTA indicates that the Diagnostic Code was issued by the Reporting MTA.
如果诊断代码是在尝试将消息中继到远程MTA期间从远程MTA获得的，则应显示远程MTA字段。解释DSN时，如果存在远程MTA字段，则表明诊断代码是由远程MTA发出的。缺少远程MTA表示诊断代码是由报告MTA发出的。
In addition to the Diagnostic-Code itself, additional textual description of the diagnostic, MAY appear in a comment enclosed in parentheses.
除诊断代码本身外，括号内的注释中还可能出现诊断代码的其他文字说明。
This field is optional, because some mail systems supply no additional information beyond that which is returned in the 'action' and 'status' fields. However, this field SHOULD be included if transport-specific diagnostic information is available.
此字段是可选的，因为某些邮件系统除了在“操作”和“状态”字段中返回的信息外，不提供其他信息。但是，如果有特定于运输的诊断信息，则应包括此字段。
The Last-Attempt-Date field gives the date and time of the last attempt to relay, gateway, or deliver the message (whether successful or unsuccessful) by the Reporting MTA. This is not necessarily the same as the value of the Date field from the header of the message used to transmit this delivery status notification: In cases where the DSN was generated by a gateway, the Date field in the message header contains the time the DSN was sent by the gateway and the DSN Last-Attempt-Date field contains the time the last delivery attempt occurred.
“上次尝试日期”字段提供报告MTA最后一次尝试中继、网关或传递邮件（成功或失败）的日期和时间。这不一定与用于传输此传递状态通知的消息头中的日期字段的值相同：在DSN由网关生成的情况下，消息头中的日期字段包含网关发送DSN的时间，DSN上次尝试日期字段包含发生上次传递尝试的时间。
last-attempt-date-field = "Last-Attempt-Date" ":" date-time
上次尝试日期字段=“上次尝试日期”：“日期时间”
This field is optional. It MUST NOT be included if the actual date and time of the last delivery attempt are not available (which might be the case if the DSN were being issued by a gateway).
此字段是可选的。如果最后一次交付尝试的实际日期和时间不可用（如果DSN是由网关发出的，则可能会出现这种情况），则不得包含此信息。
The date and time are expressed in RFC 822 'date-time' format, as modified by [HOSTREQ]. Numeric timezones ([+/-]HHMM format) MUST be used.
日期和时间以RFC 822“日期-时间”格式表示，由[HOSTREQ]修改。必须使用数字时区（[+/-]HHMM格式）。
The "final-log-id" field gives the final-log-id of the message that was used by the final-mta. This can be useful as an index to the final-mta's log entry for that delivery attempt.
“最终日志id”字段提供最终mta使用的邮件的最终日志id。这可以用作该传递尝试的最终mta日志项的索引。
final-log-id-field = "Final-Log-ID" ":" *text
final-log-id-field = "Final-Log-ID" ":" *text
This field is optional.
此字段是可选的。
For DSNs of type "delayed", the Will-Retry-Until field gives the date after which the Reporting MTA expects to abandon all attempts to deliver the message to that recipient. The Will-Retry-Until field is optional for "delay" DSNs, and MUST NOT appear in other DSNs.
对于类型为“延迟”的DSN，“将重试直到”字段给出报告MTA希望放弃将邮件传递给该收件人的所有尝试的日期。“将重试直到”字段是“延迟”DSN的可选字段，并且不得出现在其他DSN中。
will-retry-until-field = "Will-Retry-Until" ":" date-time
将重试到field=“将重试到”“：”日期时间
The date and time are expressed in RFC 822 'date-time' format, as modified by [HOSTREQ]. Numeric timezones ([+/-]HHMM format) MUST be used.
日期和时间以RFC 822“日期-时间”格式表示，由[HOSTREQ]修改。必须使用数字时区（[+/-]HHMM格式）。
Additional per-message or per-recipient DSN fields may be defined in the future by later revisions or extensions to this specification. Extension-field names beginning with "X-" will never be defined as standard fields; such names are reserved for experimental use. DSN field names NOT beginning with "X-" MUST be registered with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and published in an RFC.
今后，本规范的后续修订或扩展可能会定义额外的每封邮件或每收件人DSN字段。以“X-”开头的扩展字段名称永远不会定义为标准字段；这些名称保留供实验使用。不以“X-”开头的DSN字段名必须在互联网分配号码管理局（IANA）注册并在RFC中发布。
Extension DSN fields may be defined for the following reasons:
定义扩展DSN字段的原因如下：
(a) To allow additional information from foreign delivery status reports to be tunneled through Internet DSNs. The names of such DSN fields should begin with an indication of the foreign environment name (e.g., X400-Physical-Forwarding-Address).
(a) 允许通过Internet DSN传输来自国外交付状态报告的附加信息。此类DSN字段的名称应以外部环境名称的指示开头（例如，X400物理转发地址）。
(b) To allow the transmission of diagnostic information which is specific to a particular mail transport protocol. The names of such DSN fields should begin with an indication of the mail transport being used (e.g., SMTP-Remote-Recipient-Address). Such fields should be used for diagnostic purposes only and not by user agents or mail gateways.
(b) 允许传输特定于特定邮件传输协议的诊断信息。此类DSN字段的名称应以所使用邮件传输的指示（例如SMTP远程收件人地址）开头。此类字段应仅用于诊断目的，而不是由用户代理或邮件网关使用。
(c) To allow transmission of diagnostic information which is specific to a particular message transfer agent (MTA). The names of such DSN fields should begin with an indication of the MTA implementation that produced the DSN. (e.g., Foomail-Queue-ID).
(c) 允许传输特定于特定邮件传输代理（MTA）的诊断信息。此类DSN字段的名称应以生成DSN的MTA实现的指示开头。（例如，Foomail队列ID）。
MTA implementers are encouraged to provide adequate information, via extension fields if necessary, to allow an MTA maintainer to understand the nature of correctable delivery failures and how to fix them. For example, if message delivery attempts are logged, the DSN might include information that allows the MTA maintainer to easily find the log entry for a failed delivery attempt.
鼓励MTA实施者在必要时通过扩展字段提供足够的信息，以便MTA维护者了解可纠正交付故障的性质以及如何修复这些故障。例如，如果记录了邮件传递尝试，DSN可能会包含允许MTA维护人员轻松查找失败传递尝试的日志条目的信息。
If an MTA developer does not wish to register the meanings of such extension fields, "X-" fields may be used for this purpose. To avoid name collisions, the name of the MTA implementation should follow the "X-", (e.g., "X-Foomail-Log-ID").
如果MTA开发人员不希望注册此类扩展字段的含义，则可使用“X-”字段。为了避免名称冲突，MTA实现的名称应该跟在“X-”后面（例如，“X-Foomail-Log-ID”）。
An MTA or gateway conforms to this specification if it generates DSNs according to the protocol defined in this memo. For MTAs and gateways that do not support requests for positive delivery notification (such as in [DRPT]), it is sufficient that delivery failure reports use this protocol.
如果MTA或网关根据本备忘录中定义的协议生成DSN，则符合本规范。对于不支持正向传递通知请求的MTA和网关（如[DRPT]），传递失败报告使用此协议就足够了。
A minimal implementation of this specification need generate only the Reporting-MTA per-message field, and the Final-Recipient, Action, and Status fields for each attempt to deliver a message to a recipient described by the DSN. Generation of the other fields, when appropriate, is strongly recommended.
此规范的最小实现只需为每次尝试向DSN描述的收件人传递邮件生成“每个邮件的报告MTA”字段以及“最终收件人”、“操作”和“状态”字段。强烈建议在适当时生成其他字段。
MTAs and gateways MUST NOT generate the Original-Recipient field of a DSN unless the mail transfer protocol provides the address originally specified by the sender at the time of submission. (Ordinary SMTP does not make that guarantee, but the SMTP extension defined in [DRPT] permits such information to be carried in the envelope if it is available.)
MTA和网关不得生成DSN的原始收件人字段，除非邮件传输协议提供发件人在提交时最初指定的地址。（普通SMTP不作此保证，但[DRPT]中定义的SMTP扩展允许在信封中携带此类信息（如果可用）
Each sender-specified recipient address SHOULD result in at most one "delivered" or "failed" DSN for that recipient. If a positive DSN is requested (e.g., one using NOTIFY=SUCCESS in SMTP) for a recipient that is forwarded to multiple recipients of an "alias" (as defined in [DRPT], section 7.2.7), the forwarding MTA SHOULD normally issue a "expanded" DSN for the originally-specified recipient and not propagate the request for a DSN to the forwarding addresses. Alternatively, the forwarding MTA MAY relay the request for a DSN to exactly one of the forwarding addresses and not propagate the request to the others.
每个发件人指定的收件人地址最多应为该收件人生成一个“已送达”或“失败”DSN。如果对转发给多个“别名”收件人的收件人（如[DRPT]第7.2.7节中的定义）请求了正DSN（如SMTP中使用NOTIFY=SUCCESS），则转发MTA通常应为最初指定的收件人发出“扩展”DSN，而不是将DSN请求传播到转发地址。或者，转发MTA可以将DSN请求转发到其中一个转发地址，而不将请求传播到其他地址。
By contrast, successful submission of a message to a mailing list exploder is considered final delivery of the message. Upon delivery of a message to a recipient address corresponding to a mailing list exploder, the Reporting MTA SHOULD issue an appropriate DSN exactly as if the recipient address were that of an ordinary mailbox.
相比之下，将邮件成功提交给邮件列表分解器被视为邮件的最终交付。将邮件传递到与邮件列表爆炸器对应的收件人地址后，报告MTA应发出适当的DSN，就像收件人地址是普通邮箱地址一样。
NOTE: This is actually intended to make DSNs usable by mailing lists themselves. Any message sent to a mailing list subscriber should have its envelope return address pointing to the list maintainer [see RFC 1123, section 5.3.7(E)]. Since DSNs are sent to the envelope return address, all DSNs resulting from delivery to the recipients of a mailing list will be sent to the list maintainer. The list maintainer may elect to mechanically process DSNs upon receipt, and thus automatically delete invalid addresses from the list. (See section 7 of this memo.)
注意：这实际上是为了使DSN可以通过邮件列表本身使用。发送给邮件列表订阅者的任何邮件的信封返回地址应指向列表维护者[见RFC 1123，第5.3.7（E）节]。由于DSN被发送到信封的返回地址，因此发送给邮件列表收件人的所有DSN都将被发送给列表维护者。列表维护者可以选择在收到DSN后机械地处理DSN，从而自动从列表中删除无效地址。（见本备忘录第7节。）
This specification places no restrictions on the processing of DSNs received by user agents or distribution lists.
本规范对用户代理或通讯组列表接收的DSN的处理没有限制。
The following security considerations apply when using DSNs:
使用DSN时，以下安全注意事项适用：
DSNs may be forged as easily as ordinary Internet electronic mail. User agents and automatic mail handling facilities (such as mail distribution list exploders) that wish to make automatic use of DSNs should take appropriate precautions to minimize the potential damage from denial-of-service attacks.
DSN可以像普通互联网电子邮件一样容易伪造。希望自动使用DSN的用户代理和自动邮件处理设施（如邮件分发列表爆炸器）应采取适当的预防措施，以尽量减少拒绝服务攻击造成的潜在损害。
Security threats related to forged DSNs include the sending of:
与伪造DSN相关的安全威胁包括：
(a) A falsified delivery notification when the message is not delivered to the indicated recipient,
(a) 邮件未送达指定收件人时的伪造送达通知，
(b) A falsified non-delivery notification when the message was in fact delivered to the indicated recipient,
(b) 当邮件实际上已送达指定收件人时，伪造的未送达通知，
(c) A falsified Final-Recipient address,
(c) 伪造的最终收件人地址，
(d) A falsified Remote-MTA identification,
(d) 伪造的远程MTA身份证明，
(e) A falsified relay notification when the message is "dead ended".
(e) 消息为“死端”时的伪造中继通知。
(f) Unsolicited DSNs
(f) 未经请求的DSN
Another dimension of security is confidentiality. There may be cases in which a message recipient is autoforwarding messages but does not wish to divulge the address to which the messages are autoforwarded. The desire for such confidentiality will probably be heightened as "wireless mailboxes", such as pagers, become more widely used as autoforward addresses.
安全的另一个方面是保密性。可能存在这样的情况：邮件收件人正在自动转发邮件，但不希望泄露邮件自动转发到的地址。随着寻呼机等“无线邮箱”越来越广泛地用作自动转发地址，对此类保密性的要求可能会提高。
MTA authors are encouraged to provide a mechanism which enables the end user to preserve the confidentiality of a forwarding address. Depending on the degree of confidentiality required, and the nature of the environment to which a message were being forwarded, this might be accomplished by one or more of:
鼓励MTA作者提供一种机制，使最终用户能够保护转发地址的机密性。根据所需的保密程度以及消息转发到的环境的性质，这可以通过以下一种或多种方式实现：
(a) issuing a "relayed" DSN (if a positive DSN was requested) when a message is forwarded to a confidential forwarding address, and disabling requests for positive DSNs for the forwarded message,
(a) 当消息转发到机密转发地址时，发出“中继”DSN（如果请求了正DSN），并禁用对转发消息的正DSN请求，
(b) declaring the message to be delivered, issuing a "delivered" DSN, re-sending the message to the confidential forwarding address, and arranging for no DSNs to be issued for the re-sent message,
(b) 声明要发送的邮件，发出“已发送”DSN，将邮件重新发送到机密转发地址，并安排不为重新发送的邮件发出DSN，
(c) omitting "Remote-*" or extension fields of a DSN whenever they would otherwise contain confidential information (such as a confidential forwarding address),
(c) 如果DSN的“Remote-*”或扩展字段包含机密信息（如机密转发地址），则省略这些字段，
(d) for messages forwarded to a confidential address, setting the envelope return address (e.g., SMTP MAIL FROM address) to the NULL reverse-path ("<>") (so that no DSNs would be sent from a downstream MTA to the original sender),
(d) 对于转发到机密地址的邮件，请将信封返回地址（例如SMTP邮件发件人地址）设置为空反向路径（“<>”）（以便不会从下游MTA向原始发件人发送DSN），
(e) for messages forwarded to a confidential address, disabling delivery notifications for the forwarded message (e.g., if the "next-hop" MTA uses ESMTP and supports the DSN extension, by using the NOTIFY=NEVER parameter to the RCPT command), or
(e) 对于转发到机密地址的邮件，禁用转发邮件的传递通知（例如，如果“下一跳”MTA使用ESMTP并支持DSN扩展，请使用RCPT命令的NOTIFY=NEVER参数），或
(f) when forwarding mail to a confidential address, having the forwarding MTA rewrite the envelope return address for the forwarded message and attempt delivery of that message as if the forwarding MTA were the originator. On its receipt of final delivery status, the forwarding MTA would issue a DSN to the original sender.
(f) 将邮件转发到机密地址时，让转发MTA重写转发邮件的信封返回地址，并尝试传递该邮件，就像转发MTA是原始发件人一样。收到最终交付状态后，转发MTA将向原始发件人发出DSN。
In general, any optional DSN field may be omitted if the Reporting MTA site determines that inclusion of the field would impose too great a compromise of site confidentiality. The need for such confidentiality must be balanced against the utility of the omitted information in trouble reports and DSNs gatewayed to foreign environments.
通常，如果报告MTA站点确定包含任何可选DSN字段会对站点机密性造成太大的损害，则可以省略该字段。对此类保密性的需要必须与故障报告中遗漏信息的效用以及通过网关连接到外部环境的DSN之间进行平衡。
Implementers are cautioned that many existing MTAs will send non-delivery notifications to a return address in the message header (rather than to the one in the envelope), in violation of SMTP and other protocols. If a message is forwarded through such an MTA, no reasonable action on the part of the forwarding MTA will prevent the downstream MTA from compromising the forwarding address. Likewise, if the recipient's MTA automatically responds to messages based on a request in the message header (such as the nonstandard, but widely used, Return-Receipt-To extension header), it will also compromise the forwarding address.
需要提醒的是，许多现有MTA会将未送达通知发送到邮件头中的返回地址（而不是信封中的地址），这违反了SMTP和其他协议。如果邮件通过此类MTA转发，转发MTA的任何合理操作都不会阻止下游MTA破坏转发地址。同样，如果收件人的MTA根据邮件头中的请求自动响应邮件（例如，非标准但广泛使用的“将回执返回到扩展头”），它也会影响转发地址。
Within the framework of today's internet mail, the DSNs defined in this memo provide valuable information to the mail user; however, even a "failed" DSN can not be relied upon as a guarantee that a message was not received by the recipient. Even if DSNs are not actively forged, conditions exist under which a message can be delivered despite the fact that a failure DSN was issued.
在当今互联网邮件的框架内，本备忘录中定义的DSN为邮件用户提供了有价值的信息；但是，即使是“失败”的DSN也不能保证收件人没有收到消息。即使DSN不是主动伪造的，也存在这样的条件，即即使发出了故障DSN，仍可以传递消息。
For example, a race condition in the SMTP protocol allows for the duplication of messages if the connection is dropped following a completed DATA command, but before a response is seen by the SMTP client.
例如，如果在完成数据命令之后，但在SMTP客户端看到响应之前断开连接，SMTP协议中的竞争条件允许复制消息。
This will cause the SMTP client to retransmit the message, even though the SMTP server has already accepted it [SMTPDUP]. If one of those delivery attempts succeeds and the other one fails, a "failed" DSN could be issued even though the message actually reached the recipient.
这将导致SMTP客户端重新传输邮件，即使SMTP服务器已接受[SMTPDUP]。如果其中一个传递尝试成功，而另一个失败，则即使邮件实际到达收件人，也可能发出“失败”的DSN。
[DRPT] Moore, K., "SMTP Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3461, January 2003.
[DRPT]Moore，K.，“传递状态通知的SMTP服务扩展”，RFC 34612003年1月。
[DSN] Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 1894, January 1996.
[DSN]Moore，K.和G.Vaudreuil，“交付状态通知的可扩展消息格式”，RFC 1894，1996年1月。
[HOSTREQ] Braden, R. (ed.), "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.
[HOSTREQ]Braden，R.（编辑），“互联网主机的要求-应用和支持”，STD 3，RFC 1123，1989年10月。
[MIME1] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[MIME1]Freed，N.和N.Borenstein，“多用途Internet邮件扩展（MIME）第一部分：Internet邮件正文格式”，RFC 20451996年11月。
[MIME3] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047, November 1996.
[MIME3]Moore，K.，“MIME（多用途互联网邮件扩展）第三部分：非ASCII文本的消息头扩展”，RFC 2047，1996年11月。
[REPORT] Vaudreuil, G., "The Multipart/Report Content Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages", RFC 3462, January 2003.
[报告]Vaudreuil，G.“邮件系统管理消息报告的多部分/报告内容类型”，RFC 3462，2003年1月。
[RFC822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.
[RFC822]Crocker，D.，“ARPA互联网文本信息格式标准”，STD 11，RFC 822，1982年8月。
[SMTP] Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10, RFC 821, August 1982.
[SMTP]Postel，J.，“简单邮件传输协议”，STD 10，RFC 8211982年8月。
[SMTPDUP] Partridge, C., "Duplicate Messages and SMTP", RFC 1047, February 1988.
[SMTPDUP]帕特里奇，C.，“重复邮件和SMTP”，RFC 10471988年2月。
[STATUS] Vaudreuil, G., "Enhanced Mail System Status Codes", RFC 3463, January 2003.
[状态]Vaudreuil，G.“增强邮件系统状态代码”，RFC 3463，2003年1月。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
The authors wish to thank the following people for their reviews of early drafts of RFC 1894, of which this document is a revision, and their suggestions for improvement: Eric Allman, Harald Alvestrand, Allan Cargille, Jim Conklin, Peter Cowen, Dave Crocker, Roger Fajman, Ned Freed, Marko Kaittola, Steve Kille, John Klensin, John Gardiner Myers, Mark Nahabedian, Julian Onions, Jacob Palme, Jean Charles Roy, and Gregory Sheehan.
作者希望感谢以下人士对RFC 1894早期草案的审查（本文件为修订版）及其改进建议：Eric Allman、Harald Alvestrand、Allan Cargille、Jim Conklin、Peter Cowen、Dave Crocker、Roger Fajman、Ned Freed、Marko Kaitola、Steve Kille、John Klensin、John Gardiner Myers、，马克·纳哈贝德、朱利安·奥尼尔斯、雅各布·帕尔姆、让·查尔斯·罗伊和格雷戈里·希恩。
Appendix A - collected grammar
附录A-收集的语法
NOTE: The following lexical tokens are defined in RFC 822: atom, CHAR, comment, CR, CRLF, DIGIT, LF, linear-white-space, SPACE, text. The date-time lexical token is defined in [HOSTREQ].
注：以下词汇标记在RFC 822中定义：原子、字符、注释、CR、CRLF、数字、LF、线性空白、空格、文本。日期-时间词汇标记在[HOSTREQ]中定义。
action-field = "Action" ":" action-value
action field=“action”“：”操作值
action-value = "failed" / "delayed" / "delivered"
/ "relayed" / "expanded"
action-value = "failed" / "delayed" / "delivered"
/ "relayed" / "expanded"
address-type = atom
address-type = atom
arrival-date-field = "Arrival-Date" ":" date-time
到达日期字段=“到达日期”：“日期时间”
delivery-status-content = per-message-fields 1*( CRLF per-recipient-fields )
传递状态内容=每个邮件字段1*（每个收件人字段的CRLF）
diagnostic-code-field = "Diagnostic-Code" ":"
diagnostic-type ";" *text
diagnostic-code-field = "Diagnostic-Code" ":"
diagnostic-type ";" *text
diagnostic-type = atom
diagnostic-type = atom
dsn-gateway-field = "DSN-Gateway" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name
dsn-gateway-field = "DSN-Gateway" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name
envelope-id = *text
envelope-id = *text
extension-field = extension-field-name ":" *text
extension-field = extension-field-name ":" *text
extension-field-name = atom
extension-field-name = atom
final-recipient-field = "Final-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-address
最终收件人字段=“最终收件人”“：“地址类型”；“一般地址”
final-log-id-field = "Final-Log-ID" ":" *text
final-log-id-field = "Final-Log-ID" ":" *text
generic-address = *text
generic-address = *text
last-attempt-date-field = "Last-Attempt-Date" ":" date-time
上次尝试日期字段=“上次尝试日期”：“日期时间”
mta-name = *text
mta-name = *text
mta-name-type = atom
mta-name-type = atom
original-envelope-id-field = "Original-Envelope-Id" ":" envelope-id
原始信封id字段=“原始信封id”“：”信封id
original-recipient-field = "Original-Recipient" ":" address-type ";" generic-address
原始收件人字段=“原始收件人”“：“地址类型”；“一般地址”
per-message-fields =
[ original-envelope-id-field CRLF ]
reporting-mta-field CRLF
[ dsn-gateway-field CRLF ]
[ received-from-mta-field CRLF ]
[ arrival-date-field CRLF ]
*( extension-field CRLF )
per-message-fields =
[ original-envelope-id-field CRLF ]
reporting-mta-field CRLF
[ dsn-gateway-field CRLF ]
[ received-from-mta-field CRLF ]
[ arrival-date-field CRLF ]
*( extension-field CRLF )
per-recipient-fields =
[ original-recipient-field CRLF ]
final-recipient-field CRLF
action-field CRLF
status-field CRLF
[ remote-mta-field CRLF ]
[ diagnostic-code-field CRLF ]
[ last-attempt-date-field CRLF ]
[ final-log-id-field CRLF ]
[ will-retry-until-field CRLF ]
*( extension-field CRLF )
per-recipient-fields =
[ original-recipient-field CRLF ]
final-recipient-field CRLF
action-field CRLF
status-field CRLF
[ remote-mta-field CRLF ]
[ diagnostic-code-field CRLF ]
[ last-attempt-date-field CRLF ]
[ final-log-id-field CRLF ]
[ will-retry-until-field CRLF ]
*( extension-field CRLF )
received-from-mta-field = "Received-From-MTA" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name
从mta接收字段=“从mta接收”：“mta名称类型”；“mta名称”
remote-mta-field = "Remote-MTA" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name
远程mta字段=“远程mta”“：“mta名称类型”；“mta名称”
reporting-mta-field = "Reporting-MTA" ":" mta-name-type ";" mta-name
报告mta字段=“报告mta”“：“mta名称类型”；“mta名称”
status-code = DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT
status-code = DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT
; White-space characters and comments are NOT allowed within a
; a status-code, though a comment enclosed in parentheses
; MAY follow the last numeric sub-field of the status-code.
; Each numeric sub-field within the status-code MUST be
; expressed without leading zero digits.
; White-space characters and comments are NOT allowed within a
; a status-code, though a comment enclosed in parentheses
; MAY follow the last numeric sub-field of the status-code.
; Each numeric sub-field within the status-code MUST be
; expressed without leading zero digits.
status-field = "Status" ":" status-code
状态字段=“状态”“：”状态代码
will-retry-until-field = "Will-Retry-Until" ":" date-time
将重试到field=“将重试到”“：”日期时间
Appendix B - Guidelines for gatewaying DSNs
附录B-网关DSN指南
NOTE: This section provides non-binding recommendations for the construction of mail gateways that wish to provide semi-transparent delivery reports between the Internet and another electronic mail system. Specific DSN gateway requirements for a particular pair of mail systems may be defined by other documents.
注：本节为希望在Internet和其他电子邮件系统之间提供半透明传递报告的邮件网关的构建提供了不具约束力的建议。特定邮件系统对的特定DSN网关要求可由其他文档定义。
Gatewaying from other mail systems to DSNs
从其他邮件系统到DSN的网关
A mail gateway may issue a DSN to convey the contents of a "foreign" delivery or non-delivery notification over Internet mail. When there are appropriate mappings from the foreign notification elements to DSN fields, the information may be transmitted in those DSN fields. Additional information (such as might be useful in a trouble ticket or needed to tunnel the foreign notification through the Internet) may be defined in extension DSN fields. (Such fields should be given names that identify the foreign mail protocol, e.g., X400-* for X.400 NDN or DN protocol elements)
邮件网关可以发出DSN，以通过Internet邮件传递“外来”传递或未传递通知的内容。当存在从外部通知元素到DSN字段的适当映射时，可以在这些DSN字段中传输信息。可在扩展DSN字段中定义附加信息（例如，可能在故障通知单中有用或通过Internet传输外部通知所需的信息）。（此类字段应给出标识外部邮件协议的名称，例如，对于X.400 NDN或DN协议元素，X400-*）
The gateway must attempt to supply reasonable values for the Reporting-MTA, Final-Recipient, Action, and Status fields. These will normally be obtained by translating the values from the remote delivery or non-delivery notification into their Internet-style equivalents. However, some loss of information is to be expected. For example, the set of status-codes defined for DSNs may not be adequate to fully convey the delivery diagnostic code from the foreign system. The gateway should assign the most precise code which describes the failure condition, falling back on "generic" codes such as 2.0.0 (success), 4.0.0 (temporary failure), and 5.0.0 (permanent failure) when necessary. The actual foreign diagnostic code should be retained in the Diagnostic-Code field (with an appropriate diagnostic-type value) for use in trouble tickets or tunneling.
网关必须尝试为报告MTA、最终收件人、操作和状态字段提供合理的值。这些值通常通过将远程传递或未传递通知中的值转换为其Internet样式的等效值来获得。但是，预计会有一些信息丢失。例如，为DSN定义的一组状态代码可能不足以从外部系统完全传输传输诊断代码。网关应指定描述故障条件的最精确代码，必要时可采用“通用”代码，如2.0.0（成功）、4.0.0（暂时故障）和5.0.0（永久故障）。实际的外来诊断代码应保留在诊断代码字段中（具有适当的诊断类型值），以便在故障单或隧道中使用。
The sender-specified recipient address, and the original envelope-id, if present in the foreign transport envelope, should be preserved in the Original-Recipient and Original-Envelope-ID fields.
发件人指定的收件人地址和原始信封id（如果存在于国外运输信封中）应保留在原始收件人和原始信封id字段中。
The gateway should also attempt to preserve the "final" recipient addresses and MTA names from the foreign system. Whenever possible, foreign protocol elements should be encoded as meaningful printable ASCII strings.
网关还应尝试从外部系统保留“最终”收件人地址和MTA名称。只要可能，外部协议元素应编码为有意义的可打印ASCII字符串。
For DSNs produced from foreign delivery or nondelivery notifications, the name of the gateway MUST appear in the DSN-Gateway field of the DSN.
对于由外部传递或非传递通知生成的DSN，网关的名称必须出现在DSN的DSN网关字段中。
Gatewaying from DSNs to other mail systems
从DSN到其他邮件系统的网关
It may be possible to gateway DSNs from the Internet into a foreign mail system. The primary purpose of such gatewaying is to convey delivery status information in a form that is usable by the destination system. A secondary purpose is to allow "tunneling" of DSNs through foreign mail systems, in case the DSN may be gatewayed back into the Internet.
可以将DSN从Internet网关连接到外部邮件系统。这种网关的主要目的是以目的地系统可用的形式传递传递状态信息。第二个目的是允许DSN通过外部邮件系统“隧道”传输，以防DSN通过网关返回互联网。
In general, the recipient of the DSN (i.e., the sender of the original message) will want to know, for each recipient: the closest available approximation to the original recipient address, the delivery status (success, failure, or temporary failure), and for failed deliveries, a diagnostic code that describes the reason for the failure.
通常，DSN的接收者（即原始邮件的发送者）希望了解每个接收者：与原始接收者地址最接近的可用近似值、传递状态（成功、失败或暂时失败），以及描述失败原因的诊断代码（对于失败的传递）。
If possible, the gateway should attempt to preserve the Original-Recipient address and Original-Envelope-ID (if present), in the resulting foreign delivery status report.
如果可能，网关应尝试在生成的国外交付状态报告中保留原始收件人地址和原始信封ID（如果存在）。
When reporting delivery failures, if the diagnostic-type sub-field of the Diagnostic-Code field indicates that the original diagnostic code is understood by the destination environment, the information from the Diagnostic-Code field should be used. Failing that, the information in the Status field should be mapped into the closest available diagnostic code used in the destination environment.
报告交付故障时，如果诊断代码字段的诊断类型子字段指示目标环境可以理解原始诊断代码，则应使用诊断代码字段中的信息。否则，状态字段中的信息应映射到目标环境中使用的最接近的可用诊断代码中。
If it is possible to tunnel a DSN through the destination environment, the gateway specification may define a means of preserving the DSN information in the delivery status reports used by that environment.
如果可以通过目的地环境对DSN进行隧道传输，则网关规范可以定义在该环境使用的交付状态报告中保存DSN信息的方法。
Appendix C - Guidelines for use of DSNs by mailing list exploders
附录C-邮件列表爆炸器使用DSN的指南
This section pertains only to the use of DSNs by "mailing lists" as defined in [4], section 7.2.7.
本节仅适用于第7.2.7节[4]中定义的“邮件列表”使用DSN。
DSNs are designed to be used by mailing list exploders to allow them to detect and automatically delete recipients for whom mail delivery fails repeatedly.
DSN设计用于邮件列表爆炸器，使其能够检测并自动删除邮件传递反复失败的收件人。
When forwarding a message to list subscribers, the mailing list exploder should always set the envelope return address (e.g., SMTP MAIL FROM address) to point to a special address which is set up to receive non-delivery reports. A "smart" mailing list exploder can therefore intercept such non-delivery reports, and if they are in the DSN format, automatically examine them to determine for which recipients a message delivery failed or was delayed.
将邮件转发给列表订阅者时，邮件列表分解器应始终将信封返回地址（例如SMTP邮件发件人地址）设置为指向一个特殊地址，该地址设置为接收未送达报告。因此，“智能”邮件列表爆炸器可以截获此类未送达报告，如果它们是DSN格式，则会自动检查它们，以确定哪些收件人的邮件送达失败或延迟。
The Original-Recipient field should be used if available, since it should exactly match the subscriber address known to the list. If the Original-Recipient field is not available, the recipient field may resemble the list subscriber address. Often, however, the list subscriber will have forwarded his mail to a different address, or the address may be subject to some re-writing, so heuristics may be required to successfully match an address from the recipient field. Care is needed in this case to minimize the possibility of false matches.
如果可用，应使用原始收件人字段，因为它应与列表中已知的订户地址完全匹配。如果原始收件人字段不可用，则收件人字段可能类似于列表订户地址。然而，通常情况下，列表订阅者会将其邮件转发到不同的地址，或者该地址可能需要重新写入，因此可能需要使用试探法来成功匹配收件人字段中的地址。在这种情况下需要小心，以尽量减少错误匹配的可能性。
The reason for delivery failure can be obtained from the Status and Action fields, and from the Diagnostic-Code field (if the status-type is recognized). Reports for recipients with action values other than "failed" can generally be ignored; in particular, subscribers should not be removed from a list due to "delayed" reports.
可以从状态和操作字段以及诊断代码字段（如果状态类型已识别）中获取交付失败的原因。对于操作值不是“失败”的收件人的报告通常可以忽略；特别是，不应因为“延迟”报告而将订阅者从列表中删除。
In general, almost any failure status code (even a "permanent" one) can result from a temporary condition. It is therefore recommended that a list exploder not delete a subscriber based on any single failure DSN (regardless of the status code), but only on the persistence of delivery failure over a period of time.
一般来说，几乎任何故障状态代码（即使是“永久性”代码）都可能由临时条件导致。因此，建议列表分解器不要基于任何单一故障DSN（无论状态代码如何）删除订阅服务器，而仅基于在一段时间内持续存在的传递故障。
However, some kinds of failures are less likely than others to have been caused by temporary conditions, and some kinds of failures are more likely to be noticed and corrected quickly than others. Once more precise status codes are defined, it may be useful to differentiate between the status codes when deciding whether to delete a subscriber. For example, on a list with a high message volume, it might be desirable to temporarily suspend delivery to a recipient address which causes repeated "temporary" failures, rather than simply deleting the recipient. The duration of the suspension might depend on the type of error. On the other hand, a "user unknown" error that persisted for several days could be considered a reliable indication that address were no longer valid.
然而，与其他类型的故障相比，某些类型的故障不太可能是由临时条件引起的，并且某些类型的故障比其他类型的故障更容易被发现并迅速纠正。一旦定义了更精确的状态代码，在决定是否删除订户时，区分状态代码可能会很有用。例如，在邮件量大的列表上，可能需要暂时暂停向收件人地址的传递，这会导致重复的“临时”失败，而不是简单地删除收件人。暂停的持续时间可能取决于错误的类型。另一方面，持续数天的“用户未知”错误可被视为地址不再有效的可靠指示。
Appendix D - IANA registration forms for DSN types
附录D-DSN类型的IANA登记表
The forms below are for use when registering a new address-type, diagnostic-type, or MTA-name-type with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Each piece of information requested by a registration form may be satisfied either by providing the information on the form itself, or by including a reference to a published, publicly available specification which includes the necessary information. IANA MAY reject DSN type registrations because of incomplete registration forms, imprecise specifications, or inappropriate type names.
以下表格用于向Internet Assigned Numbers Authority（IANA）注册新地址类型、诊断类型或MTA名称类型。注册表格要求的每一条信息可以通过在表格上提供信息，或者包括对已发布的、公开的规范的引用（其中包括必要的信息）来满足。IANA可能会因为注册表格不完整、规格不准确或类型名称不正确而拒绝DSN类型注册。
To register a DSN type, complete the applicable form below and send it via Internet electronic mail to <IANA@IANA.ORG>.
要注册DSN类型，请填写以下适用表格，并通过Internet电子邮件发送至<IANA@IANA.ORG>.
IANA registration form for address-type
地址类型的IANA登记表
A registration for a DSN address-type MUST include the following information:
DSN地址类型的注册必须包括以下信息：
(a) The proposed address-type name.
(a) 建议的地址类型名称。
(b) The syntax for mailbox addresses of this type, specified using BNF, regular expressions, ASN.1, or other non-ambiguous language.
(b) 此类型邮箱地址的语法，使用BNF、正则表达式、ASN.1或其他非歧义语言指定。
(c) If addresses of this type are not composed entirely of graphic characters from the US-ASCII repertoire, a specification for how they are to be encoded as graphic US-ASCII characters in a DSN Original-Recipient or Final-Recipient DSN field.
(c) 如果此类地址不完全由US-ASCII指令表中的图形字符组成，则说明如何在DSN原始收件人或最终收件人DSN字段中将其编码为图形US-ASCII字符。
(d) [optional] A specification for how addresses of this type are to be translated to and from Internet electronic mail addresses.
(d) [可选]关于如何将此类地址转换为Internet电子邮件地址或从Internet电子邮件地址转换为Internet电子邮件地址的规范。
IANA registration form for diagnostic-type
IANA诊断类型登记表
A registration for a DSN address-type MUST include the following information:
DSN地址类型的注册必须包括以下信息：
(a) The proposed diagnostic-type name.
(a) 建议的诊断类型名称。
(b) A description of the syntax to be used for expressing diagnostic codes of this type as graphic characters from the US-ASCII repertoire.
(b) 用于将此类诊断代码表示为US-ASCII指令表中图形字符的语法说明。
(c) A list of valid diagnostic codes of this type and the meaning of each code.
(c) 此类型的有效诊断代码列表以及每个代码的含义。
(d) [optional] A specification for mapping from diagnostic codes of this type to DSN status codes (as defined in [5]).
(d) [可选]从此类诊断代码映射到DSN状态代码（如[5]中定义）的规范。
IANA registration form for MTA-name-type
MTA名称类型的IANA注册表
A registration for a DSN MTA-name-type must include the following information:
DSN MTA名称类型的注册必须包括以下信息：
(a) The proposed MTA-name-type name.
(a) 建议的MTA名称类型名称。
(b) A description of the syntax of MTA names of this type, using BNF, regular expressions, ASN.1, or other non-ambiguous language.
(b) 此类型MTA名称的语法说明，使用BNF、正则表达式、ASN.1或其他非歧义语言。
(c) If MTA names of this type do not consist entirely of graphic characters from the US-ASCII repertoire, a specification for how an MTA name of this type should be expressed as a sequence of graphic US-ASCII characters.
(c) 如果此类型的MTA名称不完全由US-ASCII指令表中的图形字符组成，则说明如何将此类型的MTA名称表示为图形US-ASCII字符序列。
Appendix E - Examples
附录E-示例
These examples are provided as illustration only, and are not considered part of the DSN protocol specification. If an example conflicts with the protocol definition above, the example is wrong.
这些示例仅作为说明提供，不被视为DSN协议规范的一部分。如果示例与上面的协议定义冲突，则该示例是错误的。
Likewise, the use of *-type sub-field names or extension fields in these examples is not to be construed as a definition for those type names or extension fields.
同样，在这些示例中使用*-型子字段名或扩展字段也不能解释为这些类型名或扩展字段的定义。
These examples were manually translated from bounced messages using whatever information was available.
这些示例是使用任何可用信息从跳转消息中手动翻译出来的。
Simple DSN
简单DSN
This is a simple DSN issued after repeated attempts to deliver a message failed. In this case, the DSN is issued by the same MTA from which the message was originated.
这是在多次尝试传递消息失败后发出的简单DSN。在这种情况下，DSN由发起邮件的同一MTA发出。
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 17:16:05 -0400 From: Mail Delivery Subsystem
<MAILER-DAEMON@CS.UTK.EDU> Message-Id:
<199407072116.RAA14128@CS.UTK.EDU> Subject: Returned mail: Cannot
send message for 5 days To: <owner-info-mime@cs.utk.edu> MIME-
Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-
status;
boundary="RAA14128.773615765/CS.UTK.EDU"
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 17:16:05 -0400 From: Mail Delivery Subsystem
<MAILER-DAEMON@CS.UTK.EDU> Message-Id:
<199407072116.RAA14128@CS.UTK.EDU> Subject: Returned mail: Cannot
send message for 5 days To: <owner-info-mime@cs.utk.edu> MIME-
Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-
status;
boundary="RAA14128.773615765/CS.UTK.EDU"
--RAA14128.773615765/CS.UTK.EDU
--RAA14128.773615765/CS.UTK.EDU
The original message was received at Sat, 2 Jul 1994 17:10:28 -0400
from root@localhost
The original message was received at Sat, 2 Jul 1994 17:10:28 -0400
from root@localhost
----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
<louisl@larry.slip.umd.edu> (unrecoverable error)
----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
<louisl@larry.slip.umd.edu> (unrecoverable error)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
<louisl@larry.slip.umd.edu>... Deferred: Connection timed out
with larry.slip.umd.edu.
Message could not be delivered for 5 days
Message will be deleted from queue
----- Transcript of session follows -----
<louisl@larry.slip.umd.edu>... Deferred: Connection timed out
with larry.slip.umd.edu.
Message could not be delivered for 5 days
Message will be deleted from queue
--RAA14128.773615765/CS.UTK.EDU content-type: message/delivery-status
--RAA14128.773615765/CS.UTK.EDU内容类型：消息/传递状态
Reporting-MTA: dns; cs.utk.edu
报告MTA:dns；cs.utk.edu
Original-Recipient: rfc822;louisl@larry.slip.umd.edu
Final-Recipient: rfc822;louisl@larry.slip.umd.edu
Action: failed
Status: 4.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 426 connection timed out
Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 17:15:49 -0400
Original-Recipient: rfc822;louisl@larry.slip.umd.edu
Final-Recipient: rfc822;louisl@larry.slip.umd.edu
Action: failed
Status: 4.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 426 connection timed out
Last-Attempt-Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 17:15:49 -0400
--RAA14128.773615765/CS.UTK.EDU content-type: message/rfc822
--RAA14128.773615765/CS.UTK.EDU内容类型：message/rfc822
[original message goes here]
[原文如下]
--RAA14128.773615765/CS.UTK.EDU--
--RAA14128.773615765/CS.UTK.EDU--
Multi-Recipient DSN
多收件人DSN
This is another DSN issued by the sender's MTA, which contains details of multiple delivery attempts. Some of these were detected locally, and others by a remote MTA.
这是发件人的MTA发布的另一个DSN，其中包含多次传递尝试的详细信息。其中一些是在本地检测到的，另一些是由远程MTA检测到的。
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 09:21:47 -0400
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@CS.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
To: <owner-ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary="JAA13167.773673707/CS.UTK.EDU"
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 09:21:47 -0400
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON@CS.UTK.EDU>
Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
To: <owner-ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary="JAA13167.773673707/CS.UTK.EDU"
--JAA13167.773673707/CS.UTK.EDU
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--JAA13167.773673707/CS.UTK.EDU
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
<arathib@vnet.ibm.com> (unrecoverable error)
<wsnell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu> (unrecoverable error)
----- The following addresses had delivery problems -----
<arathib@vnet.ibm.com> (unrecoverable error)
<wsnell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu> (unrecoverable error)
--JAA13167.773673707/CS.UTK.EDU
content-type: message/delivery-status
--JAA13167.773673707/CS.UTK.EDU
content-type: message/delivery-status
Reporting-MTA: dns; cs.utk.edu
报告MTA:dns；cs.utk.edu
Original-Recipient: rfc822;arathib@vnet.ibm.com
Final-Recipient: rfc822;arathib@vnet.ibm.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure)
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 'arathib@vnet.IBM.COM' is not a
registered gateway user
Remote-MTA: dns; vnet.ibm.com
Original-Recipient: rfc822;arathib@vnet.ibm.com
Final-Recipient: rfc822;arathib@vnet.ibm.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0 (permanent failure)
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 'arathib@vnet.IBM.COM' is not a
registered gateway user
Remote-MTA: dns; vnet.ibm.com
Original-Recipient: rfc822;johnh@hpnjld.njd.hp.com
Final-Recipient: rfc822;johnh@hpnjld.njd.hp.com
Action: delayed
Status: 4.0.0 (hpnjld.njd.jp.com: host name lookup failure)
Original-Recipient: rfc822;johnh@hpnjld.njd.hp.com
Final-Recipient: rfc822;johnh@hpnjld.njd.hp.com
Action: delayed
Status: 4.0.0 (hpnjld.njd.jp.com: host name lookup failure)
Original-Recipient: rfc822;wsnell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu
Final-Recipient: rfc822;wsnell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 user unknown
Remote-MTA: dns; sdcc13.ucsd.edu
Original-Recipient: rfc822;wsnell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu
Final-Recipient: rfc822;wsnell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 user unknown
Remote-MTA: dns; sdcc13.ucsd.edu
--JAA13167.773673707/CS.UTK.EDU content-type: message/rfc822
--JAA13167.773673707/CS.UTK.EDU内容类型：message/rfc822
[original message goes here]
[原文如下]
--JAA13167.773673707/CS.UTK.EDU--
--JAA13167.773673707/CS.UTK.EDU--
DSN from gateway to foreign system
从网关到外部系统的DSN
A delivery report generated by Message Router (MAILBUS) and gatewayed by PMDF_MR to a DSN. In this case the gateway did not have sufficient information to supply an original-recipient address.
由消息路由器（MAILBUS）生成并由PMDF\u MR通过网关传送到DSN的传递报告。在这种情况下，网关没有足够的信息来提供原始收件人地址。
Disclose-recipients: prohibited
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 1994 09:21:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Message Router Submission Agent <AMMGR@corp.timeplex.com>
Subject: Status of: Re: Battery current sense
To: owner-ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-id: <01HEGJ0WNBY28Y95LN@mr.timeplex.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
content-type: multipart/report;
report-type=delivery-status;
boundary="84229080704991.122306.SYS30"
Disclose-recipients: prohibited
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 1994 09:21:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Message Router Submission Agent <AMMGR@corp.timeplex.com>
Subject: Status of: Re: Battery current sense
To: owner-ups-mib@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-id: <01HEGJ0WNBY28Y95LN@mr.timeplex.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
content-type: multipart/report;
report-type=delivery-status;
boundary="84229080704991.122306.SYS30"
--84229080704991.122306.SYS30 content-type: text/plain
--84229080704991.122306.SYS30内容类型：文本/普通
Invalid address - nair_s %DIR-E-NODIRMTCH, No matching Directory Entry Entry found
无效地址-nair_s%DIR-E-NODIRMTCH，找不到匹配的目录项
--84229080704991.122306.SYS30 content-type: message/delivery-status
--84229080704991.122306.SYS30内容类型：消息/传递状态
Reporting-MTA: mailbus; SYS30
报告MTA:mailbus；系统30
Final-Recipient: unknown; nair_s Status: 5.0.0 (unknown permanent failure) Action: failed
最终收件人：未知；nair_s状态：5.0.0（未知永久故障）操作：失败
--84229080704991.122306.SYS30--
--84229080704991.122306.SYS30--
Delayed DSN
延迟DSN
A delay report from a multiprotocol MTA. Note that there is no returned content, so no third body part appears in the DSN.
来自多协议MTA的延迟报告。请注意，没有返回内容，因此DSN中不会显示第三个正文部分。
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: <postmaster@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <199407092338.TAA23293@CS.UTK.EDU>
Received: from nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
id <g.12954-0@sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>;
Sun, 10 Jul 1994 00:36:51 +0100
To: owner-info-mime@cs.utk.edu
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 1994 00:36:51 +0100
Subject: WARNING: message delayed at "nsfnet-relay.ac.uk"
content-type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary=foobar
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: <postmaster@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <199407092338.TAA23293@CS.UTK.EDU>
Received: from nsfnet-relay.ac.uk by sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
id <g.12954-0@sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>;
Sun, 10 Jul 1994 00:36:51 +0100
To: owner-info-mime@cs.utk.edu
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 1994 00:36:51 +0100
Subject: WARNING: message delayed at "nsfnet-relay.ac.uk"
content-type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary=foobar
--foobar content-type: text/plain
--foobar内容类型：文本/普通
The following message:
以下讯息：
UA-ID: Reliable PC (...
Q-ID: sun2.nsf:77/msg.11820-0
UA-ID: Reliable PC (...
Q-ID: sun2.nsf:77/msg.11820-0
has not been delivered to the intended recipient:
尚未交付给预期收件人：
thomas@de-montfort.ac.uk
thomas@de-蒙福特，ac.uk
despite repeated delivery attempts over the past 24 hours.
尽管在过去24小时内多次尝试交付。
The usual cause of this problem is that the remote system is temporarily unavailable.
此问题的常见原因是远程系统暂时不可用。
Delivery will continue to be attempted up to a total elapsed time of 168 hours, i.e., 7 days.
将继续尝试交付，总时间为168小时，即7天。
You will be informed if delivery proves to be impossible within this time.
如果在这段时间内无法交货，将通知您。
Please quote the Q-ID in any queries regarding this mail.
请在有关此邮件的任何查询中引用Q-ID。
--foobar content-type: message/delivery-status
--foobar内容类型：消息/传递状态
Reporting-MTA: dns; sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
报告MTA:dns；sun2.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Final-Recipient: rfc822;thomas@de-montfort.ac.uk
Final-Recipient: rfc822;thomas@de-montfort.ac.uk
Status: 4.0.0 (unknown temporary failure) Action: delayed
状态：4.0.0（未知临时故障）操作：延迟
--foobar--
--福巴--
Appendix F - Changes from RFC 1894
附录F-对RFC 1894的变更
Changed Authors contact information
更改了作者的联系信息
Updated required standards boilerplate
更新所需标准样板
Edited the text to make it spell-checker and grammar checker compliant
编辑文本以使其符合拼写检查器和语法检查器
Updated references to point to later, more mature documents, changed reference enumeration scheme.
更新参考文献以指向更晚、更成熟的文档，更改参考文献枚举方案。
Fixed paragraph numbering on page 20
第20页固定段落编号
Fixed Delayed DSN example
修复了延迟DSN示例
Added Table of Contents
新增目录
Moved Appendices to the end of the document
将附录移到文档末尾
Changed the MTA-name-Type for gateways into Internet mail, the MTA-name-type from "SMTP" to "dns".
将网关的MTA名称类型更改为Internet邮件，MTA名称类型从“SMTP”更改为“dns”。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Keith Moore University of Tennessee 1122 Volunteer Blvd, Suite 203 Knoxville TN 37996-3450 USA
基思穆尔田纳西大学田纳西大学1122志愿者BLVD，203诺克斯维尔套房TN7964-3550美国
Phone: +1-865-974-3126
Fax: +1-865-974-8296
EMail: moore@cs.utk.edu
Phone: +1-865-974-3126
Fax: +1-865-974-8296
EMail: moore@cs.utk.edu
Gregory M. Vaudreuil Lucent Technologies 7291 Williamson Rd Dallas, Tx. 75214 USA
Gregory M.Vaudreuil-Lucent Technologies美国德克萨斯州达拉斯威廉森路7291号，邮编75214
Phone: +1 214 823 9325
EMail: GregV@ieee.org
Phone: +1 214 823 9325
EMail: GregV@ieee.org
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2003年）。版权所有。
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.
本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。