Internet DRAFT - draft-dewinter-queue-start
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 23:36:13 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix)
Last-Modified: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 23:22:00 GMT
Mail Working Group Jack De Winter, Director
Internet Draft Wildbear Consulting, Inc.
Expires in six months
SMTP Service Extension
for Remote Message Queue Starting
June 12, 1996
1. Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas,
and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-
Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as
"work in progress."
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check
the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-
Drafts Shadow Directories on ds.internic.net (US East Coast),
nic.nordu.net (Europe), ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast), or
munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim).
This memo defines an extension to the SMTP service whereby an
SMTP client and server may interact to give the server an opportunity
to start the processing of its queues for messages to go to a given
host. This is an attempt to fix the security problems with the TURN
by creating a new command ETRN that places the emphasis on the server
instead of the connection. This extension is meant to be used in
startup conditions as well as for mail nodes that have transient
connections to their service providers.
The TURN command was a valid attempt to address the problem of
having to start the processing for the mail queue on a remote machine.
However, the TURN command presents a large security loophole. As
there is no verification of the remote host name, the TURN command
could be used by a rogue system to download the mail for a site other
Therefore, this memo introduces the ETRN command. This command
uses the mechanism defined in  to define extensions to the SMTP
service whereby a client ("sender-SMTP") may request that the server
("receiver-SMTP") start the processing of its mail queues for
messages that are waiting at the server for the client machine. If
any messages are at the server for the client, then the server should
create a new SMTP session and send the messages at that time.
4. Framework for the ETRN Extension
The following service extension is therefore defined:
(1) the name of the SMTP service extension is "Remote Queue
(2) the EHLO keyword value associated with this extension is "ETRN",
with no associated parameters;
(3) one additional verb, ETRN, with a single parameter that
specifies the name of the client(s) to start processing for;
(4) no additional SMTP verbs are defined by this extension.
The remainder of this memo specifies how support for the extension
affects the behavior of an SMTP client and server.
5. The Remote Queue Processing Declaration service extension
To save money, many small companies want to only maintain
transient connections to their service providers. In addition, there
are some situations where the client sites depend on their mail
arriving quickly, so forcing the queues on the server belonging to
their service provider may be more desirable than waiting for the
retry timeout to occur.
Both of these situations could currently be fixed using the TURN
command defined in , if it were not for a large security loophole
in the TURN command. As it stands, the TURN command will reverse the
direction of the SMTP connection and assume that the remote host is
being honest about what its name is. The security loophole is that
there is no documented stipulation for checking the authenticity of
the remote host name, as given in the HELO or EHLO command. As such,
most SMTP and ESMTP implementations do not implement the TURN command
to avoid this security loophole.
This has been addressed in the design of the ETRN command. This
extended turn command was written with the points in the first
paragraph in mind, yet paying attention to the problems that
currently exist with the TURN command. The security loophole is
avoided by asking the server to start a new connection aimed at the
In this manner, the server has a lot more certainty that it is
talking to the correct SMTP client. This mechanism can just be seen
as a more immediate version of the retry queues that appear in most
SMTP implementations. In addition, as this command will take a
single parameter, the name of the remote host(s) to start the queues for,
the server can decide whether it wishes to respect the request or deny
it for any local administrative reasons.
Remote queue processing means that using an SMTP or ESMTP connection,
the client may request that the server start to process parts of its
messaging queue. This processing is performed using the existing SMTP
infrastructure and will occur at some point after the processing is
The server host is the node that is responding to the ETRN command.
The client host is the node that is initiating the ETRN command.
The remote host name is defined to be a plain-text field that
specifies a name for the remote host(s). This remote host name may also
include an alias for the specified remote host or special commands to
identify other types of queues.
7. The extended ETRN command
The extended ETRN command is issued by the client host when it wishes to
start the SMTP queue processing of a given server host. The syntax of this
command is as follows:
ETRN [<option character>]<node name><CR><LF>
This command may be issued at any time once a session is established, as
long as there is not a transaction occuring. Thus, this command is
illegal between a MAIL FROM: command and the end of the DATA commands
The specified node name must be a fully qualified domain name for
the node, which may refer to a CNAME or MX pointer in the DNS. If an alias
is used for the node, multiple ETRN commands may be needed to start
the processing for the node as it may be listed at the remote site
under multiple names. This can also be addressed using the options
discussed in section 7.3.
The option character under normal circumstances is not used.
7.1 Server action on receipt of the extended ETRN command
When the server host receives the ETRN command, it should have a look
at the node name that is specified in the command and make a local
decision if it should honour the request. If not, the appropriate error
codes should be returned to the client.
Otherwise, the server host should force its retry queues to start
sending messages to that remote site, using another SMTP connection.
At the moment, there is no requirement that a connection must occur,
or that the connection must occur within a given time frame. This
should be noted in the case where there are no messages for the
client host at the server host and only the 250 response is used.
Since the processing of the queues may take an indeterminate
amount of time, this command should return immediately with a
response to the client host. The valid return codes for this command
250 OK, queuing for node <x> started
251 OK, no messages waiting for node <x>
252 OK, pending messages for node <x> started
253 OK, <n> pending messages for node <x> started
458 Unable to queue messages for node <x>
459 Node <x> not allowed: <reason>
500 Syntax Error
501 Syntax Error in Parameters
The 250 response code does not indicate that messages will be sent to
the system in question, just that the queue has been started and some
action will occur. If the server is capable of supporting it, the 251,
252 or 253 response codes should be used to give more information to the
client side. In this case, if there are messages waiting for the client
side node, a check can be performed using these responses codes as an
indication of when there are no more pending messages in the queue for
The 458 and 459 result codes should be used to give more information
back to the client host as to why the action was not performed. If the
syntax of the request is not correct, then the 500 and 501 result codes
should be used.
7.2 Client action on receiving response to extended ETRN command
If one of the 500 level error codes (550 or 551) are sent, the
client should assume that the protocol is not supported in the remote
host or that the protocol has not been implemented correctly on
either the client or server host. In this case, multiple ETRN
commands (dealing with the aliases for the system) should not be
If the 250 response is received, then the client host can assume
that the server host found its request to be satisfactory and it
will send any queued messages. This process may involve going
through a very large retry queue, and may take some time.
If the 400 level response is received, then the client can assume
that the server supports the command, but for some local reason does
not want to accept the ETRN command as is. In most cases, it will
mean that there is a list of nodes that it will accept the command
from and the current client is not on that list. The 459 response
code is presented to allow for a more in-depth reason as to why the
remote queuing cannot be started.
7.3 Use Of ETRN to release mail for a subdomain or queue
If the requesting server wishes to release all of the mail for
a given subdomain, a variation on the ETRN command can be used.
To perform this request, the option character '@' should be used
in front of the node name. In this manner, any domain names that
are formed with a suffix of the specified node name are released.
For example, if the command ETRN @foo.com was issued, then any
accumulated mail for fred.foo.com, a.b.c.d.e.f.g.foo.com or foo.com
may be released. It should be noted that the receiving side of the
ETRN command should make a decision based on the client in question
and only allow certain combinations for each of the nodes. This is
more of a security issue than anything else.
In a similar vein, it might be necessary under some circumstances
to release a certain queue, where that queue does not correspond to
a given domain name. To this end, the option character '#' can be
used to force the processing of a given queue. In this case, the
node name would be used as a queue name instead, and its syntactical
structure would be dependant on the receiving server. An example of
this would be using the command ETRN #uucp to force the flush of a
UUCP queue. Note that the use of this option is entirely a local
matter and there is no way for a client to find a list of any such
queues that exist.
8. Minimal usage
A "minimal" client may use this extension with its host name to
start the queues on the server host. This minimal usage will not
handle cases where mail for 'x.y' is sent to 's.x.y'.
A minimal server may use this extensions to start the processing
of the queues for all remote sites. In this case, the 458 error
response will not be seen, and it should always return the 250
response as it will always try and start the processing for any
The following example illustrates the use of remote queue processing
with some permanent and temporary failures.
S: <wait for connection on TCP port 25>
C: <open connection to server>
S: 220 sigurd.innosoft.com -- Server SMTP (PMDF V4.2-6 #1992)
C: EHLO ymir.claremont.edu
S: 250 ETRN
S: 500 Syntax Error
C: ETRN localname
S: 501 Syntax Error in Parameters
C: ETRN uu.net
S: 458 Unable to queue messages for node uu.net
C: ETRN sigurd.innosoft.com
S: 250 OK, queuing for node sigurd.innosoft.com started
C: ETRN innosoft.com
S: 250 OK, queuing for node innosoft.com started
C: ETRN sigurd.innosoft.com
S: 251 OK, no messages waiting for node sigurd.innosoft.com
C: ETRN innosoft.com
S: 252 OK, pending messages for node innosoft.com started
C: ETRN mysoft.com
S: 253 OK, 14 pending messages for node mysoft.com started
C: ETRN foo.bar
S: 459 Node foo.bar not allowed: Unable to resolve name.
S: 250 Goodbye
10. Security considerations
This command does not compromise any security considerations of any
existing SMTP or ESMTP protocols as it merely shortens the time that
a client needs to wait before their messages are retried.
Precautions should be taken to make sure that any client server can
only use the @ and # option characters for systems that make sense.
Failure to implement some kind of sanity checking on the
parameters could lead to congestion. This would be evident if a person
asking to release @com, which would release mail for any address that
ended with com.
This document was created with lots of support from the users of our
products, who have given some input to the functionality that they
would like to see in the software that they bought.
 J. B. Postel. Simple Mail Transfer Protocol. Request for Comments
821, August 1982.
 Klensin, J., WG Chair, Freed, N., Editor, Rose, M., Stefferud,
E., and D. Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions" RFC 1425, United
Nations University, Innosoft International, Inc., Dover Beach
Consulting, Inc., Network Management Associates, Inc., The Branch
Office, February 1993.
12. Author addresses
Jack De Winter
Wildbear Consulting, Inc.
17 Brock Street
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
tel: +1 519 576 3873