GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc1429

Network Working Group E. Thomas Request for Comments: 1429 Swedish University Network

                                                         February 1993
                    Listserv Distribute Protocol

Status of this Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
 not specify an Internet standard.  Distribution of this memo is
 unlimited.

Abstract

 This memo specifies a subset of the distribution protocol used by the
 BITNET LISTSERV to deliver mail messages to large amounts of
 recipients.  This protocol, known as DISTRIBUTE, optimizes the
 distribution by sending a single copy of the message over heavily
 loaded links, insofar as topological information is available to
 guide such decisions, and reduces the average turnaround time for
 large mailing lists to 5-15 minutes on the average. This memo
 describes a simple interface allowing non-BITNET mailing list
 exploders (or other bulk-delivery scripts) to take advantage of this
 service by letting the BITNET distribution network take care of the
 delivery.

Introduction

 Running a mailing list of 1,000 subscribers or more with plain
 "sendmail" while keeping turnaround time to a reasonable level is no
 easy task. Due mostly to its limited bandwidth in the mid-80's,
 BITNET has developed an efficient bulk delivery protocol for its
 mailing lists. Originally introduced in 1986, this protocol was
 refined little by little and now carries 2-6 million mail messages a
 day. In fact, this distribution mechanism implements a general-
 purpose delivery service which can be used by any user of BITNET or
 the Internet. Thus, a simple solution to the "sendmail" turnaround
 problem is to wrap the message and recipient list in a DISTRIBUTE
 envelope and pass it to a BITNET server for delivery.  This may not
 be the best possible solution, but it has the advantage of being easy
 to implement.
 In this document we will use the term "production" to refer to the
 normal operation of the mailing list (or bulk delivery application)
 you want to pipe through the DISTRIBUTE service. That is, the
 "production" options are those you should specify once everything is
 tested and you are confident that the setup is working to your

Thomas [Page 1] RFC 1429 Listserv Distribute Protocol February 1993

 satisfaction. In contrast, "test" and "debug" options can be used to
 experiment with the protocol but should not be used for normal
 operation because of the additional bandwidth and CPU time required
 to generate the various informational reports.
 Finally, it should be noted that the DISTRIBUTE protocol was
 developed to address a number of issues, some of them relevant only
 to BITNET, and has evolved since 1986 while keeping a compatible
 syntax. For the sake of brevity, this RFC describes only a small
 subset of the available options and syntax. This is why the syntax
 may appear unnecessarily complicated or even illogical.

1. Selecting an entry point into the DISTRIBUTE backbone

 The first thing you have to do is to find a suitable site to submit
 your distributions to. For testing, and for testing ONLY, you can
 use:
                       LISTSERV@SEARN.SUNET.SE
 For production use, however, you should select a DISTRIBUTE site in
 your topological vicinity: it would make no sense to pass your
 distributions from California to a server in Sweden if most of your
 recipients are in the US. If your organization is connected to BITNET
 and your BITNET system is part of the DISTRIBUTE backbone, this ought
 to be your best bet. Otherwise you will want to contact someone
 knowledgeable about BITNET (or the author of this RFC if you have no
 BITNET users). Make sure to run through the following checklist
 before sending any production traffic to the site in question:
 a. Do you have good connectivity to the host in question? Does the
    host, in general, have decent BITNET connectivity? There are still
    a few sites that insist on using 9.6k leased lines for BITNET in
    spite of having T1 IP access. You will want to avoid them.
 b. Send mail to the server with "show version" in the message body
    (not in the subject field, which is ignored). Is the server running
    version 1.7f or higher? If so, it should not have given you the
    following warning,
      >>> This server is configured to use PUNCH format for mail <<<
    which means that messages with lines longer than 80 characters
    cannot be handled properly. If the software version is less than
    1.7f, the warning will not be present; instead, check the first
    (bottom) "Received:" field. If it does not say "LMail", do not use
    this server as it probably cannot handle messages with long lines.

Thomas [Page 2] RFC 1429 Listserv Distribute Protocol February 1993

    Finally, make sure that the "Master nodes file" is not older
    than 2 months: there are a handful of sites which never update
    their tables due to staffing problems. They cannot be prevented
    from running LISTSERV, but you will certainly want to avoid them.
 c. How big is your workload? If you are planning to use the service
    for more than 10,000 daily recipients, you should get permission
    from the LISTSERV administrator, both as a matter of courtesy and
    to hear about any restrictions or regularly scheduled downtime they
    might have. For instance, some universities might not allow large
    distributions during prime time, or they may have several
    DISTRIBUTE machines and will want to make sure you use the "right"
    one.  Send mail to "owner-listserv" at the host in question and
    give an estimate of the amount of daily messages and recipients you
    would like to submit. If your message bounces back with "No such
    local user" or the like, it means the server did not pass the above
    test (b) and you don't want to use it anyway.
 An index of sites/hosts which have the required configuration, good
 connectivity, keep their tables up to date and have generally agreed
 to provide this service to anyone in their topological area will be
 published separately in the future.

2. Physical delivery of the DISTRIBUTE request

 The distribution request is delivered via SMTP to the e-mail address
 obtained in step 1 (for instance, LISTSERV@SEARN.SUNET.SE). In fact,
 as long as you can somehow get mail to the server's host, you can use
 the service; SMTP is just the most convenient way of doing so.

2.1. Contents of MAIL FROM: field

 You should set the MAIL FROM: field to the address of the person who
 maintains your mailing list or, generally speaking, to the address of
 a human being who can take action in case the message fails to reach
 the DISTRIBUTE server's host. This is a very rare occurrence.

2.2. Contents of RCPT TO: field

 The RCPT TO: field points to the server's address (for instance,
 LISTSERV@SEARN.SUNET.SE).

2.3. Contents of the RFC822 header

 After the DATA instruction, you must supply a valid RFC822 header
 with a "From:" field pointing to the mailbox that should receive
 notification of delivery problems, bounced mail, and so on. This can
 be the same as the MAIL FROM: field, an address of the type "owner-

Thomas [Page 3] RFC 1429 Listserv Distribute Protocol February 1993

 xxxx@yourhost", etc.  DO NOT PUT THE LIST SUBMISSION ADDRESS THERE,
 or you will get mailing loops.
 For testing, the "From:" field should point to your own mailbox, so
 that you get the responses from the server.
 As long as RFC822 syntax is respected, the only field that matters is
 the "From:" field (or "Sender:", "Resent-From:", etc.). In practice
 this means you can just pipe the distribution request into "mail
 listserv@whatever" and let your mail program build all the headers.

3. Format of the DISTRIBUTE request

 The body of the message delivered to LISTSERV defines the recipients
 of the distribution and the text (header + body) of the RFC822
 message you want to have delivered. The request starts with a "job
 card", followed by a DISTRIBUTE command, a list of recipients, and
 finally the message header and body.

3.1. Syntax of the JOB card

 The purpose of the JOB card is to make sure that any spurious text
 inserted by mail gateways or the like is flushed and not erroneously
 interpreted as a command. It can optionally be used to associate a
 "job name" with the request, in case you want to use tools to assist
 you in processing the notifications you get from the DISTRIBUTE
 servers when running in test mode. The syntax is as follows:
 //jobname JOB ECHO=NO
 "jobname" can be anything as long as it does not contain blanks, and
 can be omitted. LISTSERV generally ignores case when parsing
 commands, so you can use "job" or "Job" if you prefer. The ECHO=NO
 keyword is required for production use, to suppress the "resource
 usage summary" you would otherwise get upon completion of your
 delivery. You may want to omit it when testing.

3.2. Syntax of the DISTRIBUTE command

 Below the JOB card, you must supply the following line:
 DISTRIBUTE MAIL
 For production mode, do not specify anything else on that line. When
 testing, you should add ACK=MAIL in order to get an acknowledgement
 confirming the delivery. There are two other useful options:
 DEBUG=YES, which instructs the server to produce a report showing how
 the various recipients will be routed, but without actually

Thomas [Page 4] RFC 1429 Listserv Distribute Protocol February 1993

 delivering the message; and TRACE=YES, which does the same but does
 deliver the message. Before making a "live" test with your actual
 recipients list, you should tack the DEBUG=YES option once to make
 sure you got all the parameters and syntax right, and get a rough
 idea of the efficiency of the distribution (see the section on
 performance).

3.3. Giving the list of recipients

 The list of recipients follows the DISTRIBUTE line and is specified
 as follows:
 //To DD *
 user1@host1 BSMTP
 user2@host2 BSMTP
 /*
 The two lines starting with a "/" have to be copied as-is. Each of
 the lines in between contains the address of one of the recipients,
 followed by a blank and by the word "BSMTP", which indicates that you
 do not want the header rewritten. There are four restrictions:
 a. The address must be a plain "local-part@hostname" - no name string,
    no angle bracket, no source route, etc. Bear in mind that the
    DISTRIBUTE server is not in the same domain as you: all the
    addresses should be fully qualified.
 b. If the local-part is quoted, it must be quoted from the first word
    on.  Technically, RFC822 allows: Joe."Now@Home".Smith@xyz.edu, but
    for performance reasons this form is not supported. Just quote the
    first word to tell LISTSERV to run the address through the full
    parser: you would write "Joe"."Now@Home".Smith@xyz.edu instead.
 c. The local-part of the address may not start with an (unquoted)
    asterisk.  You can bypass this restriction by quoting the local
    part and using a %-hack through the server's host:
    "***JACK***%jack-ws.xyz.edu"@server-host.
 d. Blanks are not allowed anywhere in the address.
 You can use the pseudo-domain ".BITNET" for BITNET recipients: it is
 always supported within DISTRIBUTE requests.

3.4. Specifying the message text

 After the last recipient and the closing "/*", add the following
 line,

Thomas [Page 5] RFC 1429 Listserv Distribute Protocol February 1993

 //Data DD *,EOF
 followed by the RFC822 message (header + body) that you want
 delivered.  The EOF option indicates that the message header and body
 will extend until the end of the message you are sending to the
 DISTRIBUTE server.  If you are worried about extraneous data being
 appended by a gateway, remove the EOF option, add a closing "/*" line
 after the end of the message, followed by a "// EOJ" card to flush
 any remaining text. This, however, will fail if the message itself
 contains a "/*" line; you would have to insert a space before any
 such line.

4. Examples

 Here is an (intentionally short) example to clarify the syntax:
  1. —- cut here —–

Test JOB Distribute mail Ack=mail Debug=yes To DD *

 joe@ws-4.xyz.edu BSMTP
 jack@abc.com BSMTP
 jim@tamvm1.bitnet BSMTP
 jill@alpha.cc.buffalo.edu BSMTP
 james@library.rice.edu BSMTP
 /*
 //Data DD *,EOF
 Date:         Tue, 19 Jan 1993 10:57:29 -0500
 From:         Robert H. Smith <RHS@eta.abc.com>
 Subject:      Re: Problem with V5.41
 To:           somelist@some.host.edu
 I agree with Jack, V5.41 is not a stable release. I had to fall back
 to V5.40 within 5 minutes of installation...
                                         Bob Smith
 ----- cut here -----
 Note: some of the hostnames are genuine, but the usernames are all
 fictitious.
 You would get the following reply:
  1. ——————————————————————-

Job "Test" started on 20 Feb 1993 01:09:40

 > Distribute mail ack=mail debug=yes
 Debug trace information:

Thomas [Page 6] RFC 1429 Listserv Distribute Protocol February 1993

 ABC.COM                   goes to SEARN    (213) - single recipient
 ALPHA.CC.BUFFALO.EDU      goes to UBVM     (027) - single recipient
 LIBRARY.RICE.EDU          goes to RICEVM1  (022) - single recipient
 TAMVM1                    goes to TAIVM1   (247) - single recipient
 WS-4.XYZ.EDU              goes to SEARN    (213) - single recipient
 Path information:
  TAIVM1  : UGA      RICEVM1  TAIVM1
  UBVM    : UGA      UBVM
  RICEVM1 : UGA      RICEVM1
 (Debug) Mail forwarded to LISTSERV@UGA      for   3 recipients.
 (Debug) Mail posted via BSMTP to jack@ABC.COM.
 (Debug) Mail posted via BSMTP to joe@WS-4.XYZ.EDU.
 Job "Test" ended   on 20 Feb 1993 01:09:40
 Summary of resource utilization
 -------------------------------
  CPU time:        0.086 sec                Device I/O:     6
  Overhead CPU:    0.045 sec                Paging I/O:     5
  CPU model:        9221                    DASD model:  3380
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
 To actually perform the distribution and get an acknowledgement, you
 would change the first two lines as follows:
  1. —- cut here —–

Test JOB Echo=NO Distribute mail Ack=mail ——————– And you would get the following reply: ——————————————————————– Mail forwarded to LISTSERV@UGA for 3 recipients. Mail posted via BSMTP to jack@ABC.COM. Mail posted via BSMTP to joe@WS-4.XYZ.EDU. ——————————————————————– Finally, by removing the "Ack=mail" keyword you would perform a "silent" distribution without any acknowledgement, suitable for production mode. Thomas [Page 7] RFC 1429 Listserv Distribute Protocol February 1993 5. Performance The efficiency of the distribution depends mostly on the quality and accuracy of the topological information available to the DISTRIBUTE server (and, in some extreme cases, on system load). For BITNET recipients, the typical turnaround time for reasonably well connected systems is 5-15 minutes. Internet recipients fall in two categories: those which can be routed to a machine within or close to the recipient's organization (average turnaround time 5-20 minutes), and those for which no topological information is available at all. In that case the delivery can take much longer, but usually remains faster than with a vanilla sendmail setup. At the time being, topological information is available for most top-level domains outside the US and for many sub-domains of EDU and GOV. You can measure the efficiency of the distribution using the DEBUG=YES option as explained above. Recipients which get forwarded to another server usually get delivered within 5-20 minutes (except to poorly connected sites or countries, for which not much can be done). Recipients which are handled locally are passed to a local SMTP agent whose efficiency depends very much on the amount of "burst" queries the local name server can handle in quick succession. A number of projects are currently underway to investigate the feasibility of improving the quality of the topological information available to the DISTRIBUTE servers for the Internet. Security Considerations Security issues are not discussed in this memo. Author's Address Eric Thomas Swedish University Network Dr.Kristinas vaeg 37B 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden E-mail: ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE Thomas [Page 8]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc1429.txt · Last modified: 1993/02/23 22:20 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki