Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Hansen, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6533 AT&T Laboratories
Obsoletes: 5337 C. Newman
Updates: 3461, 3464, 3798, 6522 Oracle
Category: Standards Track A. Melnikov
ISSN: 2070-1721 Isode Ltd
February 2012
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Hansen, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6533 AT&T Laboratories
Obsoletes: 5337 C. Newman
Updates: 3461, 3464, 3798, 6522 Oracle
Category: Standards Track A. Melnikov
ISSN: 2070-1721 Isode Ltd
February 2012
Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition Notifications
国际化交付状态和处置通知
Abstract
摘要
Delivery status notifications (DSNs) are critical to the correct operation of an email system. However, the existing Draft Standards (RFC 3461, RFC 3464, RFC 6522) are presently limited to ASCII text in the machine-readable portions of the protocol. This specification adds a new address type for international email addresses so an original recipient address with non-ASCII characters can be correctly preserved even after downgrading. This also provides updated content return media types for delivery status notifications and message disposition notifications to support use of the new address type.
传递状态通知（DSN）对于电子邮件系统的正确运行至关重要。然而，现有的标准草案（RFC 3461、RFC 3464、RFC 6522）目前仅限于协议机器可读部分中的ASCII文本。此规范为国际电子邮件地址添加了新的地址类型，因此即使降级后，也可以正确保留带有非ASCII字符的原始收件人地址。这还为传递状态通知和邮件处置通知提供更新的内容返回媒体类型，以支持使用新的地址类型。
This document extends RFC 3461, RFC 3464, RFC 3798, and RFC 6522.
本文档扩展了RFC 3461、RFC 3464、RFC 3798和RFC 6522。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6533.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6533.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2012 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. UTF-8 Address Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. UTF-8 Delivery Status Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. The message/global-delivery-status Media Type . . . . . . 6
4.2. The message/global Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. The message/global-headers Media Type . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Using These Media Types with multipart/report . . . . . . 8
4.5. Additional Requirements on SMTP Servers . . . . . . . . . 9
5. UTF-8 Message Disposition Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. UTF-8 Mail Address Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Update to 'smtp' Diagnostic Type Registration . . . . . . 11
6.3. message/global-headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4. message/global-delivery-status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.5. message/global-disposition-notification . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Changes since RFC 5337 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. UTF-8 Address Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. UTF-8 Delivery Status Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. The message/global-delivery-status Media Type . . . . . . 6
4.2. The message/global Media Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. The message/global-headers Media Type . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. Using These Media Types with multipart/report . . . . . . 8
4.5. Additional Requirements on SMTP Servers . . . . . . . . . 9
5. UTF-8 Message Disposition Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. UTF-8 Mail Address Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Update to 'smtp' Diagnostic Type Registration . . . . . . 11
6.3. message/global-headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4. message/global-delivery-status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.5. message/global-disposition-notification . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Changes since RFC 5337 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
When an email message is transmitted using the SMTPUTF8 [RFC6531] extension and Internationalized Email Headers [RFC6532], it is sometimes necessary to return that message or generate a Message Disposition Notification (MDN) [RFC3798]. As a message sent to multiple recipients can generate a status and disposition notification for each recipient, it is helpful if a client can correlate these notifications based on the recipient address it provided; thus, preservation of the original recipient is important. This specification describes how to preserve the original recipient and updates the MDN and DSN formats to support the new address types.
当使用SMTPUTF8[RFC6531]扩展和国际化电子邮件头[RFC6532]传输电子邮件时，有时需要返回该邮件或生成邮件处置通知（MDN）[RFC3798]。由于发送给多个收件人的邮件可以为每个收件人生成状态和处置通知，因此，如果客户机可以根据其提供的收件人地址关联这些通知，则会很有帮助；因此，保存原始接收人是很重要的。本规范描述了如何保留原始收件人并更新MDN和DSN格式以支持新的地址类型。
NOTE: While this specification updates the experimental versions of this protocol by removing certain constructs (e.g., the "<addr <addr>>" address syntax is no longer permitted), the name of the Address Type "UTF-8" and the media type names message/global, message/global-delivery-status, and message/global-headers have not been changed.
注意：虽然本规范通过删除某些结构（例如不再允许“<addr<addr>>”地址语法）来更新本协议的实验版本，但地址类型“UTF-8”的名称和媒体类型名称message/global、message/global传递状态和message/global头并未更改。
This specification is a revision of and replacement for [RFC5337]. Section 6 of [RFC6530] describes the change in approach between this specification and the previous version.
本规范是对[RFC5337]的修订和替换。[RFC6530]第6节描述了本规范与先前版本之间方法的变化。
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 [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[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
The formal syntax uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [RFC5234] notation including the core rules defined in Appendix B of [RFC5234] and the UTF-8 syntax rules in Section 4 of [RFC3629].
形式语法使用增广巴科斯诺尔形式（ABNF）[RFC5234]符号，包括[RFC5234]附录B中定义的核心规则和[RFC3629]第4节中的UTF-8语法规则。
"An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications" [RFC3464] defines the concept of an address type. The address format introduced in "Internationalized Email Headers" [RFC6532] is a new address type. The syntax for the new address type in the context of status notifications is specified at the end of this section.
“传递状态通知的可扩展消息格式”[RFC3464]定义了地址类型的概念。“国际化电子邮件标题”[RFC6532]中引入的地址格式是一种新的地址类型。本节末尾指定了状态通知上下文中新地址类型的语法。
An SMTP [RFC5321] server that advertises both the SMTPUTF8 extension [RFC6531] and the DSN extension [RFC3461] MUST accept a UTF-8 address type in the ORCPT parameter including 8-bit UTF-8 characters. This address type also includes a 7-bit encoding suitable for use in a message/delivery-status body part or an ORCPT parameter sent to an SMTP server that does not advertise SMTPUTF8.
播发SMTPUTF8扩展名[RFC6531]和DSN扩展名[RFC3461]的SMTP[RFC5321]服务器必须在ORCPT参数中接受UTF-8地址类型，包括8位UTF-8字符。此地址类型还包括适合在邮件/传递状态正文部分中使用的7位编码，或发送到不播发SMTPUTF8的SMTP服务器的ORCPT参数。
This address type has 3 forms: utf-8-addr-xtext, utf-8-addr-unitext, and utf-8-address. Only the first form is 7-bit safe (only uses ASCII characters [ASCII]).
此地址类型有3种形式：utf-8-addr-xtext、utf-8-addr-unitext和utf-8-address。只有第一种格式是7位安全的（仅使用ASCII字符[ASCII]）。
The utf-8-address form is only suitable for use in newly defined protocols capable of native representation of 8-bit characters. That is, the utf-8-address form MUST NOT be used:
utf-8地址格式仅适用于新定义的协议，该协议能够以8位字符的本机表示。也就是说，不得使用utf-8地址表：
1. in the ORCPT parameter when the SMTP server doesn't advertise support for SMTPUTF8 (utf-8-addr-xtext MUST be used instead); or
1. 当SMTP服务器不公布对SMTPUTF8的支持时，在ORCPT参数中（必须改用utf-8-addr-xtext）；或
2. if the SMTP server supports SMTPUTF8, but the address contains ASCII characters not permitted in the ORCPT parameter (e.g., the ORCPT parameter forbids unencoded SP and the '=' character), (either utf-8-addr-unitext or utf-8-addr-xtext MUST be used instead); or
2. 如果SMTP服务器支持SMTPUTF8，但地址包含ORCPT参数中不允许的ASCII字符（例如，ORCPT参数禁止未编码的SP和“=”字符），（必须改用utf-8-addr-unitext或utf-8-addr-xtext）；或
3. in a 7-bit transport environment including a message/ delivery-status "Original-Recipient:" or "Final-Recipient:" field, (utf-8-addr-xtext MUST be used instead).
3. 在7位传输环境中，包括消息/传递状态“原始收件人：”或“最终收件人：”字段（必须改用utf-8-addr-xtext）。
The utf-8-address form MAY be used in the ORCPT parameter when the SMTP server also advertises support for SMTPUTF8 and the address doesn't contain any ASCII characters not permitted in the ORCPT parameter. It SHOULD be used in a message/global-delivery-status "Original-Recipient:" or "Final-Recipient:" DSN field, or in an "Original-Recipient:" header field [RFC3798] if the message is a SMTPUTF8 message.
当SMTP服务器还播发对SMTPUTF8的支持，并且地址不包含ORCPT参数中不允许的任何ASCII字符时，可以在ORCPT参数中使用utf-8地址形式。它应用于消息/全局传递状态“原始收件人：”或“最终收件人：”DSN字段，或者如果消息是SMTPUTF8消息，则应用于“原始收件人：”标题字段[RFC3798]。
In addition, the utf-8-addr-unitext form can be used anywhere where the utf-8-address form is allowed.
此外，utf-8-addr-unitext表单可以在允许utf-8-address表单的任何地方使用。
When used in the ORCPT parameter, the UTF-8 address type requires that ASCII CTLs, SP, '\', '+', and '=' be encoded using 'unitext' encoding (see below). This is described by the utf-8-addr-xtext and utf-8-addr-unitext forms in the ABNF below. The 'unitext' encoding uses "\x{HEXPOINT}" syntax (EmbeddedUnicodeChar in the ABNF below) for encoding any Unicode character outside of ASCII range, as well as for encoding CTLs, SP, '\', '+', and '='. HEXPOINT is 2 to 6 hexadecimal digits. This encoding avoids the need to use the xtext encoding described in [RFC3461], as any ASCII characters that need to be escaped using xtext encoding never appear in any unitext-encoded string. When sending data to a SMTPUTF8-capable server, native UTF-8 characters SHOULD be used instead of the EmbeddedUnicodeChar syntax described below. When sending data to an SMTP server that does not advertise SMTPUTF8, then the EmbeddedUnicodeChar syntax MUST be used instead of UTF-8.
在ORCPT参数中使用时，UTF-8地址类型要求使用“unitext”编码对ASCII CTL、SP、“\”、“+”和“=”进行编码（见下文）。以下ABNF中的utf-8-addr-xtext和utf-8-addr-unitext表格对此进行了描述。“unitext”编码使用“\x{HEXPOINT}”语法（下面ABNF中的EmbeddedDenicochar）对ASCII范围之外的任何Unicode字符进行编码，并对CTL、SP、'\'、'+'和'='进行编码。十六进制数字是2到6个十六进制数字。这种编码避免了使用[RFC3461]中描述的xtext编码，因为需要使用xtext编码进行转义的任何ASCII字符都不会出现在任何unitext编码字符串中。将数据发送到支持SMTPUTF8的服务器时，应使用本机UTF-8字符，而不是下面描述的EmbeddeDechar语法。将数据发送到不播发SMTPUTF8的SMTP服务器时，必须使用EmbeddedDenicochar语法而不是UTF-8。
When the ORCPT parameter is placed in a message/ global-delivery-status "Original-Recipient:" field, the utf-8-addr-xtext form of the UTF-8 address type SHOULD be converted to the utf-8-address form (see the ABNF below) by removing the unitext encoding. However, if an address is labeled with the UTF-8 address type but does not conform to utf-8 syntax, then it MUST be copied into the message/global-delivery-status field without alteration.
当ORCPT参数置于消息/全局传递状态“原始收件人：”字段中时，应通过删除unitext编码将utf-8地址类型的utf-8-addr-xtext格式转换为utf-8-address格式（参见下面的ABNF）。但是，如果地址标记为UTF-8地址类型，但不符合UTF-8语法，则必须将其复制到消息/全局传递状态字段中，而不进行更改。
The ability to encode characters with the EmbeddedUnicodeChar encodings should be viewed as a transitional mechanism and avoided when possible. It is hoped that as systems lacking support for SMTPUTF8 become less common over time, these encodings can eventually be phased out.
应将使用DECHAR编码对字符进行编码的能力视为一种过渡机制，并在可能的情况下予以避免。希望随着时间的推移，缺乏SMTPUTF8支持的系统变得越来越不常见，这些编码最终能够被淘汰。
In the ABNF below, all productions not defined in this document are defined in Appendix B of [RFC5234], in Section 4 of [RFC3629], or in [RFC3464].
在以下ABNF中，本文件中未定义的所有产品在[RFC5234]附录B、[RFC3629]第4节或[RFC3464]中定义。
utf-8-type-addr = "utf-8;" utf-8-enc-addr
utf-8-type-addr=“utf-8；”utf-8-enc-addr
utf-8-address = Mailbox ; Mailbox as defined in [RFC6531].
utf-8-地址=邮箱；[RFC6531]中定义的邮箱。
utf-8-enc-addr = utf-8-addr-xtext / utf-8-addr-unitext / utf-8-address
utf-8-enc-addr=utf-8-addr-xtext/utf-8-addr-unitext/utf-8-address
utf-8-addr-xtext = 1*(QCHAR / EmbeddedUnicodeChar)
; 7bit form of utf-8-addr-unitext.
; Safe for use in the ORCPT [RFC3461]
; parameter even when SMTPUTF8 SMTP
; extension is not advertised.
utf-8-addr-xtext = 1*(QCHAR / EmbeddedUnicodeChar)
; 7bit form of utf-8-addr-unitext.
; Safe for use in the ORCPT [RFC3461]
; parameter even when SMTPUTF8 SMTP
; extension is not advertised.
utf-8-addr-unitext = 1*(QUCHAR / EmbeddedUnicodeChar)
; MUST follow utf-8-address ABNF when
; dequoted.
; Safe for using in the ORCPT [RFC3461]
; parameter when SMTPUTF8 SMTP extension
; is also advertised.
utf-8-addr-unitext = 1*(QUCHAR / EmbeddedUnicodeChar)
; MUST follow utf-8-address ABNF when
; dequoted.
; Safe for using in the ORCPT [RFC3461]
; parameter when SMTPUTF8 SMTP extension
; is also advertised.
QCHAR = %x21-2a / %x2c-3c / %x3e-5b / %x5d-7e
; ASCII printable characters except
; CTLs, SP, '\', '+', '='.
QCHAR = %x21-2a / %x2c-3c / %x3e-5b / %x5d-7e
; ASCII printable characters except
; CTLs, SP, '\', '+', '='.
QUCHAR = QCHAR / UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
; ASCII printable characters except
; CTLs, SP, '\', '+' and '=', plus
; other Unicode characters encoded in UTF-8
QUCHAR = QCHAR / UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
; ASCII printable characters except
; CTLs, SP, '\', '+' and '=', plus
; other Unicode characters encoded in UTF-8
EmbeddedUnicodeChar = %x5C.78 "{" HEXPOINT "}"
; starts with "\x"
EmbeddedUnicodeChar = %x5C.78 "{" HEXPOINT "}"
; starts with "\x"
HEXPOINT = ( ( "0"/"1" ) %x31-39 ) / "10" / "20" /
"2B" / "3D" / "7F" / ; all xtext-specials
"5C" / (HEXDIG8 HEXDIG) / ; 2-digit forms
( NZHEXDIG 2(HEXDIG) ) / ; 3-digit forms
( NZDHEXDIG 3(HEXDIG) ) / ; 4-digit forms excluding
( "D" %x30-37 2(HEXDIG) ) / ; ... surrogate
( NZHEXDIG 4(HEXDIG) ) / ; 5-digit forms
( "10" 4*HEXDIG ) ; 6-digit forms
; represents either "\" or a Unicode code point outside
; the ASCII repertoire
HEXPOINT = ( ( "0"/"1" ) %x31-39 ) / "10" / "20" /
"2B" / "3D" / "7F" / ; all xtext-specials
"5C" / (HEXDIG8 HEXDIG) / ; 2-digit forms
( NZHEXDIG 2(HEXDIG) ) / ; 3-digit forms
( NZDHEXDIG 3(HEXDIG) ) / ; 4-digit forms excluding
( "D" %x30-37 2(HEXDIG) ) / ; ... surrogate
( NZHEXDIG 4(HEXDIG) ) / ; 5-digit forms
( "10" 4*HEXDIG ) ; 6-digit forms
; represents either "\" or a Unicode code point outside
; the ASCII repertoire
HEXDIG8 = %x38-39 / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
; HEXDIG excluding 0-7
NZHEXDIG = %x31-39 / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
; HEXDIG excluding "0"
NZDHEXDIG = %x31-39 / "A" / "B" / "C" / "E" / "F"
; HEXDIG excluding "0" and "D"
HEXDIG8 = %x38-39 / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
; HEXDIG excluding 0-7
NZHEXDIG = %x31-39 / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F"
; HEXDIG excluding "0"
NZDHEXDIG = %x31-39 / "A" / "B" / "C" / "E" / "F"
; HEXDIG excluding "0" and "D"
A traditional delivery status notification [RFC3464] comes in a three-part multipart/report [RFC6522] container, where the first part is human-readable text describing the error, the second part is a 7-bit-only message/delivery-status, and the optional third part is used for content (message/rfc822) or header (text/rfc822-headers) return. As the present standard DSN format does not permit the return of undeliverable SMTPUTF8 messages, three new media types have been defined. ([RFC5337] introduced experimental versions of these media types.)
传统的传递状态通知[RFC3464]位于由三部分组成的多部分/报告[RFC6522]容器中，其中第一部分是描述错误的可读文本，第二部分是仅7位的消息/传递状态，可选的第三部分用于返回内容（消息/rfc822）或标题（文本/rfc822标题）。由于目前的标准DSN格式不允许返回无法传递的SMTPUTF8消息，因此定义了三种新的媒体类型。（[RFC5337]介绍了这些介质类型的实验版本。）
The first type, message/global-delivery-status, has the syntax of message/delivery-status with three modifications. First, the charset for message/global-delivery-status is UTF-8, and thus any field MAY contain UTF-8 characters when appropriate (see the ABNF below). In particular, the "Diagnostic-Code:" field MAY contain UTF-8 as described in SMTPUTF8 [RFC6531]; the "Diagnostic-Code:" field SHOULD be in i-default language [RFC2277]. Second, systems generating a message/global-delivery-status body part SHOULD use the utf-8-address
第一种类型message/global delivery status的语法为message/delivery status，有三个修改。首先，消息/全局传递状态的字符集是UTF-8，因此任何字段在适当的情况下都可能包含UTF-8字符（请参见下面的ABNF）。特别是，“诊断代码：”字段可能包含SMTPUTF8[RFC6531]中所述的UTF-8；“诊断代码：”字段应使用i-默认语言[RFC2277]。其次，生成消息/全局传递状态主体部分的系统应使用utf-8地址
form of the UTF-8 address type for all addresses containing characters outside the ASCII repertoire. These systems SHOULD up-convert the utf-8-addr-xtext or the utf-8-addr-unitext form of a UTF-8 address type in the ORCPT parameter to the utf-8-address form of a UTF-8 address type in the "Original-Recipient:" field. Third, an optional field called "Localized-Diagnostic:" is added. Each instance includes a language tag [RFC5646] and contains text in the specified language. This is equivalent to the text part of the "Diagnostic-Code:" field. All instances of "Localized-Diagnostic:" MUST use different language tags. The ABNF for message/ global-delivery-status is specified below.
包含ASCII指令表以外字符的所有地址的UTF-8地址类型的形式。这些系统应将ORCPT参数中utf-8地址类型的utf-8-addr-xtext或utf-8-addr-unitext格式向上转换为“原始收件人：”字段中utf-8地址类型的utf-8地址格式。第三，添加了一个名为“本地化诊断：”的可选字段。每个实例都包含一个语言标记[RFC5646]，并包含指定语言的文本。这相当于“诊断代码：”字段的文本部分。“本地化诊断：”的所有实例必须使用不同的语言标记。下面指定了消息/全局传递状态的ABNF。
In the ABNF below, all productions not defined in this document are defined in Appendix B of [RFC5234], in Section 4 of [RFC3629], or in [RFC3464]. Note that <text-fixed> is the same as <text> from [RFC5322], but without <obs-text>. If or when RFC 5322 is updated to disallow <obs-text>, <text-fixed> should become just <text>. Also, if or when RFC 5322 is updated to disallow control characters in <text>, <text-fixed> should become a reference to that update instead.
在以下ABNF中，本文件中未定义的所有产品在[RFC5234]附录B、[RFC3629]第4节或[RFC3464]中定义。请注意，<text fixed>与[RFC5322]中的<text>相同，但没有<obs text>。如果或当RFC 5322更新为不允许<obs text>，<text fixed>应变为just<text>。此外，如果或当RFC 5322更新为不允许<text>中的控制字符时，<text fixed>应改为对该更新的引用。
utf-8-delivery-status-content = per-message-fields
1*( CRLF utf-8-per-recipient-fields )
; "per-message-fields" remains unchanged from the definition
; in RFC 3464, except for the "extension-field",
; which is updated below.
utf-8-delivery-status-content = per-message-fields
1*( CRLF utf-8-per-recipient-fields )
; "per-message-fields" remains unchanged from the definition
; in RFC 3464, except for the "extension-field",
; which is updated below.
utf-8-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
*(localized-diagnostic-text-field CRLF) ]
[ last-attempt-date-field CRLF ]
[ final-log-id-field CRLF ]
[ will-retry-until-field CRLF ]
*( extension-field CRLF )
; All fields except for "original-recipient-field",
; "final-recipient-field", "diagnostic-code-field",
; and "extension-field" remain unchanged from
; the definition in RFC 3464.
utf-8-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
*(localized-diagnostic-text-field CRLF) ]
[ last-attempt-date-field CRLF ]
[ final-log-id-field CRLF ]
[ will-retry-until-field CRLF ]
*( extension-field CRLF )
; All fields except for "original-recipient-field",
; "final-recipient-field", "diagnostic-code-field",
; and "extension-field" remain unchanged from
; the definition in RFC 3464.
generic-address =/ utf-8-enc-addr
; Only allowed with the "utf-8" address-type.
; Updates Section 3.2.3 of RFC 3798.
;
; This indirectly updates "original-recipient-field"
; and "final-recipient-field".
generic-address =/ utf-8-enc-addr
; Only allowed with the "utf-8" address-type.
; Updates Section 3.2.3 of RFC 3798.
;
; This indirectly updates "original-recipient-field"
; and "final-recipient-field".
diagnostic-code-field =
"Diagnostic-Code" ":" diagnostic-type ";" *text-fixed
diagnostic-code-field =
"Diagnostic-Code" ":" diagnostic-type ";" *text-fixed
localized-diagnostic-text-field = "Localized-Diagnostic" ":" Language-Tag ";" *utf8-text ; "Language-Tag" is a language tag as defined in [RFC5646].
本地化诊断文本字段=“本地化诊断”“：“语言标记”；*utf8文本；“语言标记”是[RFC5646]中定义的语言标记。
extension-field =/ extension-field-name ":" *utf8-text
; Updates Section 7 of RFC3798
extension-field =/ extension-field-name ":" *utf8-text
; Updates Section 7 of RFC3798
text-fixed = %d1-9 / ; Any ASCII character except for NUL,
%d11 / ; CR, and LF.
%d12 / ; See note above about <text-fixed>
%d14-127
text-fixed = %d1-9 / ; Any ASCII character except for NUL,
%d11 / ; CR, and LF.
%d12 / ; See note above about <text-fixed>
%d14-127
utf8-text = text-fixed / UTF8-non-ascii
utf8-text = text-fixed / UTF8-non-ascii
UTF8-non-ascii = UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
UTF8-non-ascii = UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4
The second type, used for returning the content, is message/global, which is similar to message/rfc822, except it contains a message with UTF-8 headers. This media type is described in [RFC6532].
用于返回内容的第二种类型是message/global，它类似于message/rfc822，只是它包含一个带有UTF-8头的消息。[RFC6532]中描述了该介质类型。
The third type, used for returning the headers, is message/ global-headers and contains only the UTF-8 header fields of a message (all lines prior to the first blank line in a SMTPUTF8 message). Unlike message/global, this body part provides no difficulties for the present infrastructure.
第三种类型用于返回标头，即消息/全局标头，仅包含消息的UTF-8标头字段（SMTPUTF8消息中第一个空行之前的所有行）。与message/global不同，这个body部分对当前的基础架构没有任何困难。
Note that as far as a multipart/report [RFC6522] container is concerned, message/global-delivery-status, message/global, and message/global-headers MUST be treated as equivalent to message/ delivery-status, message/rfc822, and text/rfc822-headers. That is,
注意，对于多部分/报表[RFC6522]容器而言，消息/全局传递状态、消息/全局和消息/全局头必须被视为等同于消息/传递状态、消息/rfc822和文本/rfc822头。就是，
implementations processing multipart/report MUST expect any combinations of the 6 media types mentioned above inside a multipart/ report media type.
处理多部分/报表的实现必须在多部分/报表媒体类型中包含上述6种媒体类型的任意组合。
All three new types will typically use the "8bit" Content-Transfer-Encoding. (In the event all content is 7-bit, the equivalent traditional types for delivery status notifications MAY be used. For example, if information in a message/global-delivery-status part can be represented without any loss of information as message/ delivery-status, then the message/delivery-status body part may be used.) Note that [RFC6532] relaxed a restriction from MIME [RFC2046] regarding the use of Content-Transfer-Encoding in new "message" subtypes. This specification explicitly allows the use of Content-Transfer-Encoding in message/global-headers and message/ global-delivery-status. This is not believed to be problematic as these new media types are intended primarily for use by newer systems with full support for 8-bit MIME and UTF-8 headers.
这三种新类型通常使用“8位”内容传输编码。（如果所有内容均为7位，则可以使用传递状态通知的等效传统类型。例如，如果消息/全局传递状态部分中的信息可以表示为消息/传递状态，而不会丢失任何信息，则可以使用消息/传递状态正文部分。）注意[RFC6532]放宽了MIME[RFC2046]对在新“消息”子类型中使用内容传输编码的限制。此规范明确允许在消息/全局头和消息/全局传递状态中使用内容传输编码。这不被认为是有问题的，因为这些新媒体类型主要用于完全支持8位MIME和UTF-8头的较新系统。
If an SMTP server that advertises both SMTPUTF8 and DSN needs to return an undeliverable SMTPUTF8 message, then it has two choices for encapsulating the SMTPUTF8 message when generating the corresponding multipart/report:
如果同时播发SMTPUTF8和DSN的SMTP服务器需要返回无法传递的SMTPUTF8消息，则在生成相应的多部分/报告时，它有两个用于封装SMTPUTF8消息的选项：
If the return-path SMTP server does not support SMTPUTF8, then the undeliverable body part and headers MUST be encoded using a 7-bit Content-Transfer-Encoding such as "base64" or "quoted-printable" [RFC2045], as detailed in Section 4.
如果返回路径SMTP服务器不支持SMTPUTF8，则必须使用7位内容传输编码（如“base64”或“quoted printable”[RFC2045]）对无法交付的正文部分和标题进行编码，如第4节所述。
Otherwise, "8bit" Content-Transfer-Encoding can be used.
否则，可以使用“8位”内容传输编码。
Message Disposition Notifications [RFC3798] have a similar design and structure to DSNs. As a result, they use the same basic return format. When generating an MDN for a UTF-8 header message, the third part of the multipart/report contains the returned content (message/ global) or header (message/global-headers), same as for DSNs. The second part of the multipart/report uses a new media type, message/ global-disposition-notification, which has the syntax of message/ disposition-notification with two modifications. First, the charset for message/global-disposition-notification is UTF-8, and thus any field MAY contain UTF-8 characters when appropriate (see the ABNF below). (In particular, the failure-field, the error-field, and the warning-field MAY contain UTF-8. These fields SHOULD be in i-default
消息处置通知[RFC3798]的设计和结构与DSN类似。因此，它们使用相同的基本返回格式。为UTF-8头消息生成MDN时，多部分/报告的第三部分包含返回的内容（消息/全局）或头（消息/全局头），与DSN相同。multipart/report的第二部分使用了一种新的媒体类型message/global disposition notification，它的语法为message/disposition notification，但有两个修改。首先，消息/全局处置通知的字符集是UTF-8，因此任何字段在适当的情况下都可能包含UTF-8字符（请参见下面的ABNF）。（特别是，故障字段、错误字段和警告字段可能包含UTF-8。这些字段应为i-default
language [RFC2277].) Second, systems generating a message/ global-disposition-notification body part (typically a mail user agent) SHOULD use the UTF-8 address type for all addresses containing characters outside the ASCII repertoire.
第二，生成消息/全局处置通知正文部分（通常是邮件用户代理）的系统应将UTF-8地址类型用于包含ASCII指令表以外字符的所有地址。
The MDN specification also defines the "Original-Recipient:" header field, which is added with a copy of the contents of ORCPT at delivery time. When generating an "Original-Recipient:" header field, a delivery agent writing a UTF-8 header message in native format SHOULD convert the utf-8-addr-xtext or the utf-8-addr-unitext form of a UTF-8 address type in the ORCPT parameter to the corresponding utf-8-address form.
MDN规范还定义了“Original Recipient:”标题字段，该字段在交付时与ORCPT内容的副本一起添加。生成“原始收件人：”标头字段时，以本机格式编写UTF-8标头消息的传递代理应将ORCPT参数中UTF-8地址类型的UTF-8-addr-xtext或UTF-8-addr-unitext格式转换为相应的UTF-8地址格式。
The MDN specification also defines the "Disposition-Notification-To:" header field, which is an address header field and thus follows the same 8-bit rules as other address header fields such as "From:" and "To:" when used in a UTF-8 header message.
MDN规范还定义了“Disposition Notification To:”报头字段，这是一个地址报头字段，因此在UTF-8报头消息中使用时遵循与其他地址报头字段相同的8位规则，如“From:”和“To:”。
; ABNF for "original-recipient-header", "original-recipient-field",
; and "final-recipient-field" from RFC 3798 is implicitly updated
; as they use the updated "generic-address" as defined in
; Section 4 of this document.
; ABNF for "original-recipient-header", "original-recipient-field",
; and "final-recipient-field" from RFC 3798 is implicitly updated
; as they use the updated "generic-address" as defined in
; Section 4 of this document.
failure-field = "Failure" ":" *utf8-text ; "utf8-text" is defined in Section 4 of this document.
failure field=“failure”“：”*utf8文本；本文件第4节定义了“utf8文本”。
error-field = "Error" ":" *utf8-text ; "utf8-text" is defined in Section 4 of this document.
error field=“error”“：”*utf8文本；本文件第4节定义了“utf8文本”。
warning-field = "Warning" ":" *utf8-text ; "utf8-text" is defined in Section 4 of this document.
警告字段=“警告”“：”*utf8文本；本文件第4节定义了“utf8文本”。
This specification does not create any new IANA registries. However, the following items have been registered as a result of this document.
本规范不创建任何新的IANA注册表。但是，以下项目已作为本文件的结果进行了登记。
The mail address type registry was created by [RFC3464]. The registration template response follows:
邮件地址类型注册表由[RFC3464]创建。注册模板响应如下：
(a) The address-type name.
(a) 地址类型名称。
UTF-8
UTF-8
(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。
See Section 3.
见第3节。
(c) If addresses of this type are not composed entirely of graphic characters from the ASCII repertoire, a specification for how they are to be encoded as graphic ASCII characters in an "Original-Recipient:" or "Final-Recipient:" DSN field.
(c) 如果此类地址不完全由ASCII指令表中的图形字符组成，则说明如何在“原始收件人：”或“最终收件人：”DSN字段中将其编码为图形ASCII字符。
This address type has 3 forms (as defined in Section 3): utf-8-addr-xtext, utf-8-addr-unitext, and utf-8-address. Only the first form is 7-bit safe.
此地址类型有3种形式（如第3节所定义）：utf-8-addr-xtext、utf-8-addr-unitext和utf-8-address。只有第一种形式是7位安全的。
The mail diagnostic type registry was created by [RFC3464] and updated by [RFC5337]. This specification replaces [RFC5337]. The registration for the 'smtp' diagnostic type has been updated to reference RFC 6533 in addition to [RFC3464] and to remove the reference to [RFC5337].
邮件诊断类型注册表由[RFC3464]创建，并由[RFC5337]更新。本规范取代[RFC5337]。除[RFC3464]外，“smtp”诊断类型的注册已更新为参考RFC 6533，并删除对[RFC5337]的参考。
When the 'smtp' diagnostic type is used in the context of a message/ delivery-status body part, it remains as presently defined. When the 'smtp' diagnostic type is used in the context of a message/ global-delivery-status body part, the codes remain the same, but the text portion MAY contain UTF-8 characters.
当在邮件/传递状态正文部分的上下文中使用“smtp”诊断类型时，它将保持当前定义的状态。在邮件/全局传递状态正文部分的上下文中使用“smtp”诊断类型时，代码保持不变，但文本部分可能包含UTF-8字符。
Type name: message
类型名称：消息
Subtype name: global-headers
子类型名称：全局标头
Required parameters: none
所需参数：无
Optional parameters: none
可选参数：无
Encoding considerations: This media type contains Internationalized Email Headers [RFC6532] with no message body. Whenever possible, the 8-bit content transfer encoding SHOULD be used. When this media type passes through a 7-bit-only SMTP infrastructure, it MAY be encoded with the base64 or quoted-printable content transfer encoding.
编码注意事项：此媒体类型包含没有消息正文的国际化电子邮件标题[RFC6532]。只要可能，应使用8位内容传输编码。当此媒体类型通过仅7位SMTP基础结构时，可以使用base64或带引号的可打印内容传输编码对其进行编码。
Security considerations: See Section 7.
安全注意事项：见第7节。
Interoperability considerations: It is important that this media type is not converted to a charset other than UTF-8. As a result, implementations MUST NOT include a charset parameter with this media type. Although it might be possible to down-convert this media type to the text/rfc822-header media type, such conversion is discouraged as it loses information.
互操作性注意事项：重要的是不要将此媒体类型转换为UTF-8以外的字符集。因此，实现不能包含具有此媒体类型的字符集参数。虽然可能会将此媒体类型下转换为text/rfc822头媒体类型，但不建议进行这种转换，因为它会丢失信息。
Published specification: RFC 6533
已发布规范：RFC 6533
Applications that use this media type: SMTPUTF8 servers and email clients that support multipart/report generation or parsing.
使用此媒体类型的应用程序：SMTPUTF8服务器和支持多部分/报告生成或分析的电子邮件客户端。
Additional information:
其他信息：
Magic number(s): none
幻数：无
File extension(s): In the event this is saved to a file, the extension ".u8hdr" is suggested.
文件扩展名：如果保存到文件中，建议使用扩展名“.u8hdr”。
Macintosh file type code(s): The 'TEXT' type code is suggested as files of this type are typically used for diagnostic purposes and suitable for analysis in a UTF-8-aware text editor. A uniform type identifier (UTI) of "public.utf8-email-message-header" is suggested. This type conforms to "public.utf8-plain-text" and "public.plain-text".
Macintosh文件类型代码：建议使用“文本”类型代码，因为这种类型的文件通常用于诊断目的，并且适合在UTF-8感知文本编辑器中进行分析。建议使用“public.utf8电子邮件消息头”的统一类型标识符（UTI）。此类型符合“public.utf8纯文本”和“public.plain text”。
Person & email address to contact for further information: See the Authors' Addresses section of this document.
联系人和电子邮件地址以了解更多信息：请参阅本文档的作者地址部分。
Intended usage: COMMON
预期用途：普通
Restrictions on usage: This media type contains textual data in the UTF-8 charset. It typically contains octets with the 8th bit set. As a result, a transfer encoding is required when a 7-bit transport is used.
使用限制：此媒体类型在UTF-8字符集中包含文本数据。它通常包含第8位集的八位字节。因此，使用7位传输时需要传输编码。
Author: See the Authors' Addresses section of this document.
作者：请参阅本文档的作者地址部分。
Change controller: IETF Standards Process
变更控制员：IETF标准流程
Type name: message
类型名称：消息
Subtype name: global-delivery-status
子类型名称：全局传递状态
Required parameters: none
所需参数：无
Optional parameters: none
可选参数：无
Encoding considerations: This media type contains delivery status notification attributes in the UTF-8 charset. The 8-bit content transfer encoding MUST be used with this content-type, unless it is sent over a 7-bit transport environment, in which case quoted-printable or base64 may be necessary.
编码注意事项：此媒体类型在UTF-8字符集中包含传递状态通知属性。8位内容传输编码必须与此内容类型一起使用，除非它是通过7位传输环境发送的，在这种情况下，可能需要quoted printable或base64。
Security considerations: See Section 7
安全注意事项：见第7节
Interoperability considerations: This media type provides functionality similar to the message/delivery-status content-type for email message return information. Clients of the previous format will need to be upgraded to interpret the new format; however, the new media type makes it simple to identify the difference.
互操作性注意事项：此媒体类型提供了与电子邮件返回信息的消息/传递状态内容类型类似的功能。以前格式的客户端需要升级以解释新格式；然而，新的媒体类型使得识别差异变得简单。
Published specification: RFC 6533
已发布规范：RFC 6533
Applications that use this media type: SMTP servers and email clients that support delivery status notification generation or parsing.
使用此媒体类型的应用程序：支持传递状态通知生成或解析的SMTP服务器和电子邮件客户端。
Additional information:
其他信息：
Magic number(s): none
幻数：无
File extension(s): The extension ".u8dsn" is suggested.
File extension(s): The extension ".u8dsn" is suggested.translate error, please retry
Macintosh file type code(s): A uniform type identifier (UTI) of "public.utf8-email-message-delivery-status" is suggested. This type conforms to "public.utf8-plain-text".
Macintosh文件类型代码：建议使用“public.utf8电子邮件传递状态”的统一类型标识符（UTI）。此类型符合“public.utf8纯文本”。
Person & email address to contact for further information: See the Authors' Addresses section of this document.
联系人和电子邮件地址以了解更多信息：请参阅本文档的作者地址部分。
Intended usage: COMMON
预期用途：普通
Restrictions on usage: This is expected to be the second part of a multipart/report.
使用限制：这应该是多部分/报告的第二部分。
Author: See the Authors' Addresses section of this document.
作者：请参阅本文档的作者地址部分。
Change controller: IETF Standards Process
变更控制员：IETF标准流程
Type name: message
类型名称：消息
Subtype name: global-disposition-notification
子类型名称：全局处置通知
Required parameters: none
所需参数：无
Optional parameters: none
可选参数：无
Encoding considerations: This media type contains disposition notification attributes in the UTF-8 charset. The 8-bit content transfer encoding MUST be used with this content-type, unless it is sent over a 7-bit transport environment, in which case quoted-printable or base64 may be necessary.
编码注意事项：此媒体类型在UTF-8字符集中包含处置通知属性。8位内容传输编码必须与此内容类型一起使用，除非它是通过7位传输环境发送的，在这种情况下，可能需要quoted printable或base64。
Security considerations: See Section 7.
安全注意事项：见第7节。
Interoperability considerations: This media type provides functionality similar to the message/disposition-notification content-type for email message disposition information. Clients of the previous format will need to be upgraded to interpret the new format; however, the new media type makes it simple to identify the difference.
互操作性注意事项：此媒体类型提供与电子邮件处置信息的邮件/处置通知内容类型类似的功能。以前格式的客户端需要升级以解释新格式；然而，新的媒体类型使得识别差异变得简单。
Published specification: RFC 6533
已发布规范：RFC 6533
Applications that use this media type: Email clients or servers that support message disposition notification generation or parsing.
使用此媒体类型的应用程序：支持邮件处置通知生成或解析的电子邮件客户端或服务器。
Additional information:
其他信息：
Magic number(s): none
幻数：无
File extension(s): The extension ".u8mdn" is suggested.
文件扩展名：建议使用扩展名“.u8mdn”。
Macintosh file type code(s): A uniform type identifier (UTI) of "public.utf8-email-message-disposition-notification" is suggested. This type conforms to "public.utf8-plain-text".
Macintosh文件类型代码：建议使用“public.utf8电子邮件处置通知”的统一类型标识符（UTI）。此类型符合“public.utf8纯文本”。
Person & email address to contact for further information: See the Authors' Addresses section of this document.
联系人和电子邮件地址以了解更多信息：请参阅本文档的作者地址部分。
Intended usage: COMMON
预期用途：普通
Restrictions on usage: This is expected to be the second part of a multipart/report.
使用限制：这应该是多部分/报告的第二部分。
Author: See the Authors' Addresses section of this document.
作者：请参阅本文档的作者地址部分。
Change controller: IETF Standards Process
变更控制员：IETF标准流程
Automated use of report types without authentication presents several security issues. Forging negative reports presents the opportunity for denial-of-service attacks when the reports are used for automated maintenance of directories or mailing lists. Forging positive reports may cause the sender to incorrectly believe a message was delivered when it was not.
在不进行身份验证的情况下自动使用报表类型会带来几个安全问题。伪造负面报告在报告用于目录或邮件列表的自动维护时，会带来拒绝服务攻击的机会。伪造正面报告可能会导致发件人错误地认为邮件在未送达时已送达。
Malicious users can generate report structures designed to trigger coding flaws in report parsers. Report parsers need to use secure coding techniques to avoid the risk of buffer overflow or denial-of-service attacks against parser coding mistakes. Code reviews of such parsers are also recommended.
恶意用户可以生成旨在触发报告解析器中的编码缺陷的报告结构。报表解析器需要使用安全编码技术，以避免针对解析器编码错误的缓冲区溢出或拒绝服务攻击风险。还建议对此类解析器进行代码审查。
Malicious users of the email system regularly send messages with forged envelope return paths, and these messages trigger delivery status reports that result in a large amount of unwanted traffic on the Internet. Many users choose to ignore delivery status notifications because they are usually the result of "blowback" from forged messages and thus never notice when messages they sent go undelivered. As a result, support for correlation of delivery status and message disposition notification messages with sent messages has become a critical feature of mail clients and possibly mail stores, if the email infrastructure is to remain reliable. In the short term, simply correlating Message-IDs may be sufficient to distinguish true status notifications from those resulting from forged originator addresses. But in the longer term, including cryptographic signature material that can securely associate the status notification with the original message is advisable.
电子邮件系统的恶意用户定期发送带有伪造信封返回路径的邮件，这些邮件会触发传递状态报告，从而在互联网上造成大量不必要的流量。许多用户选择忽略传递状态通知，因为它们通常是伪造邮件“回击”的结果，因此从不注意他们发送的邮件何时无法送达。因此，如果电子邮件基础结构要保持可靠，则支持传递状态和消息处置通知消息与已发送消息之间的关联已成为邮件客户端和可能的邮件存储的关键功能。在短期内，简单地关联消息ID可能足以区分真实状态通知和伪造的发起者地址产生的状态通知。但从长远来看，包括能够安全地将状态通知与原始消息关联的加密签名材料是可取的。
As this specification permits UTF-8 in additional fields, the security considerations of UTF-8 [RFC3629] apply.
由于本规范允许UTF-8用于其他领域，因此UTF-8[RFC3629]的安全注意事项适用。
[ASCII] American National Standards Institute (formerly United States of America Standards Institute), "USA Code for Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4-1968, 1968.
[ASCII]美国国家标准协会（前美国标准协会），“美国信息交换代码”，ANSI X3.4-1968，1968年。
ANSI X3.4-1968 has been replaced by newer versions with slight modifications, but the 1968 version remains definitive for the Internet.
ANSI X3.4-1968已被稍作修改的较新版本所取代，但1968年版本仍然是互联网的最终版本。
[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。
[RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.
[RFC2277]Alvestrand，H.，“IETF字符集和语言政策”，BCP 18，RFC 2277，1998年1月。
[RFC3461] Moore, K., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs)", RFC 3461, January 2003.
[RFC3461]Moore，K.，“用于传递状态通知（DSN）的简单邮件传输协议（SMTP）服务扩展”，RFC 3461，2003年1月。
[RFC3464] Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3464, January 2003.
[RFC3464]Moore，K.和G.Vaudreuil，“交付状态通知的可扩展消息格式”，RFC 3464，2003年1月。
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC3629]Yergeau，F.，“UTF-8，ISO 10646的转换格式”，STD 63，RFC 3629，2003年11月。
[RFC3798] Hansen, T. and G. Vaudreuil, "Message Disposition Notification", RFC 3798, May 2004.
[RFC3798]Hansen，T.和G.Vaudreuil，“消息处置通知”，RFC 3798，2004年5月。
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[RFC5234]Crocker，D.和P.Overell，“语法规范的扩充BNF:ABNF”，STD 68，RFC 5234，2008年1月。
[RFC5321] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321, October 2008.
[RFC5321]Klensin，J.，“简单邮件传输协议”，RFC 53212008年10月。
[RFC5322] Resnick, P., Ed., "Internet Message Format", RFC 5322, October 2008.
[RFC5322]Resnick，P.，Ed.“互联网信息格式”，RFC5222008年10月。
[RFC5646] Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Tags for Identifying Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, September 2009.
[RFC5646]Phillips，A.和M.Davis，“识别语言的标记”，BCP 47，RFC 5646，2009年9月。
[RFC6522] Kucherawy, M., Ed., "The Multipart/Report Media Type for the Reporting of Mail System Administrative Messages", STD 73, RFC 6522, January 2012.
[RFC6522]Kucherawy，M.，Ed.，“用于报告邮件系统管理消息的多部分/报告媒体类型”，STD 73，RFC 6522，2012年1月。
[RFC6530] Klensin, J. and Y. Ko, "Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email", RFC 6530, February 2012.
[RFC6530]Klensin，J.和Y.Ko，“国际化电子邮件的概述和框架”，RFC6530，2012年2月。
[RFC6531] Yao, J. and W. Mao, "SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email", RFC 6531, February 2012.
[RFC6531]Yao，J.和W.Mao，“国际化电子邮件的SMTP扩展”，RFC 65312012年2月。
[RFC6532] Yang, A., Steele, S., and N. Freed, "Internationalized Email Headers", RFC 6532, February 2012.
[RFC6532]Yang，A.，Steele，S.，和N.Freed，“国际化电子邮件标题”，RFC 6532，2012年2月。
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[RFC2045]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。
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, November 1996.
[RFC2046]Freed，N.和N.Borenstein，“多用途Internet邮件扩展（MIME）第二部分：媒体类型”，RFC 20461996年11月。
[RFC5337] Newman, C. and A. Melnikov, "Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition Notifications", RFC 5337, September 2008.
[RFC5337]Newman，C.和A.Melnikov，“国际化交付状态和处置通知”，RFC 5337，2008年9月。
Changes were made to move from Experimental to Standards Track. The most significant was the removal of an embedded alternative ASCII address within a utf-8-address, and the reflections of the ABNF changes in [RFC6531].
做出了一些改变，从实验性轨道转向标准轨道。最重要的是删除了utf-8地址中嵌入的替代ASCII地址，以及[RFC6531]中ABNF变化的反映。
Fixed description of utf-8-addr-xtext and utf-8-addr-unitext.
修复了utf-8-addr-xtext和utf-8-addr-unitext的描述。
References to Downgrade and uMailbox removed/fixed.
删除/修复了对降级和uMailbox的引用。
ABNF changes and fixed errata submitted by Alfred Hoenes.
Alfred Hoenes提交的ABNF变更和固定勘误表。
Minor changes to MIME type references.
对MIME类型引用的微小更改。
Other minor corrections.
其他轻微更正。
Many thanks for input provided by Pete Resnick, James Galvin, Ned Freed, John Klensin, Harald Alvestrand, Frank Ellermann, SM, Alfred Hoenes, Kazunori Fujiwara, and members of the EAI working group to help solidify this proposal.
非常感谢Pete Resnick、James Galvin、Ned Freed、John Klensin、Harald Alvestrand、Frank Ellermann、SM、Alfred Hoenes、Kazunori Fujiwara和EAI工作组成员提供的帮助巩固该提案的意见。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Tony Hansen (editor) AT&T Laboratories 200 Laurel Ave. Middletown, NJ 07748 US
美国新泽西州米德尔敦劳雷尔大道200号AT&T实验室托尼·汉森（编辑）07748
EMail: tony+eaidsn@maillennium.att.com
EMail: tony+eaidsn@maillennium.att.com
Chris Newman Oracle 800 Royal Oaks Monrovia, CA 91016-6347 US
克里斯纽曼甲骨文800皇家橡树蒙罗维亚，加利福尼亚州91016-6347美国
EMail: chris.newman@oracle.com
EMail: chris.newman@oracle.com
Alexey Melnikov Isode Ltd 5 Castle Business Village 36 Station Road Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2BX UK
英国米德尔塞克斯郡汉普顿车站路36号城堡商业村5号Alexey Melnikov Isode有限公司TW12 2BX
EMail: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com
EMail: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com