📄 rfc876.txt
字号:
Network Working Group D. Smallberg
Request for Comments: 876 ISI
September 1983
Survey of SMTP Implementations
----------------------
This memo is a survey of implementation status. It does not specify an
official protocol, but rather notes the status of impementation of
aspects of a protocol. It is expected that the status of the hosts
reported on will change. This information must be treated as a snapshot
of the state of these implementations.
----------------------
From May to August 1983, I tested SMTP servers on the Internet to
see whether they accepted connections from the Arpanet (a Class A
network) and ISI-Net (a Class B network), whether they accepted the user
"postmaster" as a mail recipient, and whether a nonexistent user was
immediately rejected as a mail recipient.
The hosts from which the tests were conducted were ISI-VAXA on the
Arpanet (running 4.1bsd UNIX), and ISI-MOE on ISI-Net (running 4.1a).
Internet hosts were tested at various times throughout the last four
months. During the survey, I noted anomalies in a few dozen hosts' SMTP
servers; examples included a RSET command causing the server to close
the connection, a VRFY POSTMASTER evoking a reply containing an illegal
mailbox, and some cases of improper reply codes. These bugs were
reported and in most cases promptly fixed.
I would class three problems as significant because about 40 hosts
exhibit at least one of them:
1) In reply to a RSET and/or a NOOP command, some servers reply
"200", which is never a legal reply code, instead of "250".
(See sections 4.2 and 4.3 of RFC 821.)
2) If a VRFY command occurs before a MAIL command, some hosts
reply "554 Nested MAIL command". The end of section 4.1.1 of
RFC 821 states that a VRFY may occur anywhere in the session.
3) If a mail transaction is started, with a sender and receiver
specified, and a RSET is issued before the text of the message
itself is collected, some servers send a message to the sender
about being unable to deliver mail because no message was
collected. While RFC 821 doesn't rule this out, it certainly
is not consistent with the notion of resetting the transaction.
In the table in the appendix, the names and addresses of the hosts
tested were taken from the NIC host table of 17 August 1983. TACs and
echo hosts were not included in the survey.
Page 1
RFC 876
Here are the summarized results of the survey:
483 hosts were tested
283 are claimed by the host table to support SMTP
49 of those 283 (17%) failed to permit a connection to be opened from
either ISI-VAXA or ISI-MOE.
51 hosts did not claim to support SMTP, but did allow a connection to
be opened from at least one of the two ISI test hosts.
285 hosts were connected to from ISI-VAXA
170 hosts were connected to from ISI-MOE; all 170 were connected to
from ISI-VAXA as well.
115 hosts out of the 285 (40%), therefore, could be connected to from
ISI-VAXA only.
69 of the 285 connectable hosts (24%) returned a positive reply to the
command "VRFY postmaster"
162 hosts out of the 285 connectable hosts (57%) immediately rejected
mail addressed to a nonexistent user; that is, they gave an
"unknown user" reply to the command "RCPT TO:<jqkxwzvb@host>",
where "host" was the foreign host.
115 hosts out of the 285 (40%) gave a positive acknowledgement to a
RCPT command with a nonexistent user.
8 hosts (3%) were never up during this part of the test.
121 hosts out of the 162 which immediately reject mail to nonexistent
users (75%) accepted mail for the recipient "postmaster". Thus,
42% (121 out of 285) of the connectable hosts do not immediately
reject mail for "postmaster".
References:
RFC 821 Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 821, Network
Information Center, SRI International, Menlo Park, August 1982.
Page 2
RFC 876
APPENDIX
The hosts in this table are taken from the NIC host table of
17 August 1983, with TACs and echo hosts omitted, and are grouped by
network. There are six result entries for each host:
Claim SMTP + = the host table lists this host as supporting SMTP;
- = such support is not listed
Arpanet + = a connection could be opened from ISI-VAXA
- = no such connection could be opened
ISI-Net + = a connection could be opened from ISI-MOE
- = no such connection could be opened
VRFY Post + = the command "VRFY postmaster" evoked a positive reply
- = it did not
RCPT Post + = the command "RCPT TO:<postmaster@host>" elicited a
positive reply
- = it did not
Bad jqkx + = the command "RCPT TO:<jqkxwzvb@host>" elicited a
negative reply (i.e. unknown user)
- = it received a positive reply (i.e. recipient accepted)
Claim Arpa ISI- VRFY RCPT Bad
SMTP net Net Post Post jqkx Host name Address Notes
----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --------- ------- -----
- - - - - - alta-coma 3.1.0.50
- - - - - - satnet 4.0.0.0
- - - - - - etam-expak 4.0.0.1
- - - - - - goonhilly-expak 4.0.0.2
- - - - - - tanum-expak 4.0.0.3
- - - - - - satnet-sink 4.0.0.37
- - - - - - etam-monitor 4.0.0.41
- - - - - - goonhilly-monitor 4.0.0.42
- - - - - - tanum-monitor 4.0.0.43
- - - - - - raisting 4.0.0.72
- - - - - - raisting-monitor 4.0.0.78
- - - - - - raisting-expak 4.0.0.79
- - - - - - fucino 4.0.0.88
- - - - - - fucino-monitor 4.0.0.94
- - - - - - fucino-expak 4.0.0.95
+ + + - + + bbncca 8.0.0.2
+ + + - + + bbnccb 8.1.0.2
+ + + - + + bbnccc 8.2.0.2
+ + + - + + bbnccd 8.3.0.2
+ + - - + - bbnccg 8.0.0.3 b
+ + + - + + bbnccf 8.0.0.4
Page 3
RFC 876
Claim Arpa ISI- VRFY RCPT Bad
SMTP net Net Post Post jqkx Host name Address Notes
----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --------- ------- -----
+ + + - + + bbnccp 8.2.0.4
+ + + - + + bbncci 8.3.0.4
+ + + - + + bbnh 8.4.0.4
+ - - - - - bbn-cdnoc 8.0.0.5
+ + + - + + bbn-cd 8.1.0.5
+ + + - + + bbn-admin 8.1.0.6
+ + + - + + bbn-inoc 8.2.0.6
+ + + - + + bbnccw 8.3.0.6
+ + + - + + bbnccs 8.0.0.7
+ + + - + + bbnz 8.1.0.7
+ + + - + + bbnccq 8.2.0.7
+ + + - + + bbnccx 8.0.0.8
+ + + - + + bbnccy 8.2.0.8
+ + + - + + csnet-cic 8.0.0.14
+ + + - + + bbn-noc 8.1.0.14
+ + + - + - ucla-cs 10.0.0.1
- - - - - - ucla-ccn 10.1.0.1
+ + + - + - ucla-locus 10.2.0.1
+ + + - + - ucla-ats 10.3.0.1
- - - - - - sri-nsc11 10.0.0.2
+ + + + + + sri-kl 10.1.0.2
+ + + - + - sri-csl 10.2.0.2
+ + - - + + sri-tsc 10.3.0.2
+ + + - + - nosc-cc 10.0.0.3
- - - - - - logicon 10.2.0.3
+ + + - + - nprdc 10.3.0.3
+ + + + + + utah-cs 10.0.0.4
+ + + - + - utah-20 10.3.0.4
+ + + - + - bbnf 10.0.0.5
+ + + - + - bbng 10.1.0.5
+ + + - + - bbna 10.3.0.5
+ + + + + + mit-multics 10.0.0.6
+ + + - + - mit-dms 10.1.0.6
- - - - - - mit-ai-reserved 10.2.0.6
+ + + - + - mit-ml 10.3.0.6
+ + + + + - rand-relay 10.1.0.7
+ + + - + + rand-unix 10.3.0.7
+ + + - + + nrl 10.0.0.8
+ + + - + - nrl-aic 10.1.0.8
+ + + - + + nswc-wo 10.2.0.8
- - - - - - nrl-tops10 10.3.0.8
- - - - - - nrl-arctan 10.6.0.8
+ + + - + - nrl-css 10.7.0.8
- - - - - - harv-10 10.0.0.9
+ + + - + - yale 10.2.0.9
+ + + - + + ll 10.0.0.10
+ + + - + - ll-vlsi 10.1.0.10
+ + - - - + ll-xn 10.2.0.10
+ + - - - + ll-en 10.4.0.10
+ - - - - - ll-sst 10.6.0.10
Page 4
RFC 876
Claim Arpa ISI- VRFY RCPT Bad
SMTP net Net Post Post jqkx Host name Address Notes
----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --------- ------- -----
+ + + - + + su-ai 10.0.0.11
+ + + + + + su-score 10.3.0.11
+ + + - + + compion-vms 10.0.0.12
+ + + + + + gunter-adam 10.1.0.13
- + + - + - cmu-cs-b 10.0.0.14
+ + + - + - cmu-cs-a 10.1.0.14
+ + + - + - cmu-cs-c 10.3.0.14
+ + + + + - rochester 10.0.0.15
+ + + - + + ames-tss 10.0.0.16
+ + + - - + ames-vmsa 10.2.0.16
- + + - - + ames-vmsb 10.3.0.16
+ + + - + + mitre 10.0.0.17
- + + - - + mitre-gateway 10.1.0.17
- - - - - - mitre-lan 10.4.0.17
+ + + + + + radc-multics 10.0.0.18
⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码
Ctrl + C
搜索代码
Ctrl + F
全屏模式
F11
切换主题
Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键
?
增大字号
Ctrl + =
减小字号
Ctrl + -