GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc1854

Network Working Group N. Freed Request For Comments: 1854 Innosoft International, Inc. Category: Standards Track A. Cargille, WG Chair

                                                          October 1995
                       SMTP Service Extension
                       for Command Pipelining

Status of this Memo

 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.

Abstract

 This memo defines an extension to the SMTP service whereby a server
 can indicate the extent of its ability to accept multiple commands in
 a single TCP send operation. Using a single TCP send operation for
 multiple commands can improve SMTP performance significantly.

Introduction

 Although SMTP is widely and robustly deployed, certain extensions may
 nevertheless prove useful. In particular, many parts of the Internet
 make use of high latency network links.
 SMTP's intrinsic one command-one response structure is significantly
 penalized by high latency links, often to the point where the factors
 contributing to overall connection time are dominated by the time
 spent waiting for responses to individual commands (turnaround time).
 In the best of all worlds it would be possible to simply deploy SMTP
 client software that makes use of command pipelining: batching up
 multiple commands into single TCP send operations. Unfortunately, the
 original SMTP specification [1] did not explicitly state that SMTP
 servers must support this.  As a result a non-trivial number of
 Internet SMTP servers cannot adequately handle command pipelining.
 Flaws known to exist in deployed servers include:

(1) Connection handoff and buffer flushes in the middle of

     the SMTP dialogue.  Creation of server processes for
     incoming SMTP connections is a useful, obvious, and
     harmless implementation technique. However, some SMTP
     servers defer process forking and connection handoff

Freed & Cargille Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 1854 SMTP Pipelining October 1995

     until some intermediate point in the SMTP dialogue.
     When this is done material read from the TCP connection
     and kept in process buffers can be lost.

(2) Flushing the TCP input buffer when an SMTP command

     fails. SMTP commands often fail but there is no reason
     to flush the TCP input buffer when this happens.
     Nevertheless, some SMTP servers do this.

(3) Improper processing and promulgation of SMTP command

     failures. For example, some SMTP servers will refuse to
     accept a DATA command if the last RCPT TO command
     fails, paying no attention to the success or failure of
     prior RCPT TO command results. Other servers will
     accept a DATA command even when all previous RCPT TO
     commands have failed. Although it is possible to
     accommodate this sort of behavior in a client that
     employs command pipelining, it does complicate the
     construction of the client unnecessarily.
 This memo uses the mechanism described in [2] to define an extension
 to the SMTP service whereby an SMTP server can declare that it is
 capable of handling pipelined commands. The SMTP client can then
 check for this declaration and use pipelining only when the server
 declares itself capable of handling it.

1. Framework for the Command Pipelining Extension

 The Command Pipelining extension is defined as follows:
  (1)   the name of the SMTP service extension is Pipelining;
  (2)   the EHLO keyword value associated with the extension is
        PIPELINING;
  (3)   no parameter is used with the PIPELINING EHLO keyword;
  (4)   no additional parameters are added to either the MAIL
        FROM or RCPT TO commands.
  (5)   no additional SMTP verbs are defined by this extension;
        and,
  (6)   the next section specifies how support for the
        extension affects the behavior of a server and client
        SMTP.

Freed & Cargille Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 1854 SMTP Pipelining October 1995

2. The Pipelining Service Extension

 When a client SMTP wishes to employ command pipelining, it first
 issues the EHLO command to the server SMTP. If the server SMTP
 responds with code 250 to the EHLO command, and the response includes
 the EHLO keyword value PIPELINING, then the server SMTP has indicated
 that it can accommodate SMTP command pipelining.

2.1. Client use of pipelining

 Once the client SMTP has confirmed that support exists for the
 pipelining extension, the client SMTP may then elect to transmit
 groups of SMTP commands in batches without waiting for a response to
 each individual command. In particular, the commands RSET, MAIL FROM,
 SEND FROM, SOML FROM, SAML FROM, and RCPT TO can all appear anywhere
 in a pipelined command group.  The EHLO, DATA, VRFY, EXPN, TURN,
 QUIT, and NOOP commands can only appear as the last command in a
 group since their success or failure produces a change of state which
 the client SMTP must accommodate. (NOOP is included in this group so
 it can be used as a synchronization point.)
 Additional commands added by other SMTP extensions may only appear as
 the last command in a group unless otherwise specified by the
 extensions that define the commands.
 The actual transfer of message content is explicitly allowed to be
 the first "command" in a group. That is, the RSET/MAIL FROM sequence
 necessary to initiate a new message transaction can be placed in the
 same group as the final transfer of the headers and body of the
 previous message.
 Client SMTP implementations that employ pipelining MUST check ALL
 statuses associated with each command in a group. For example, if
 none of the RCPT TO recipient addresses were accepted the client must
 then check the response to the DATA command -- the client cannot
 assume that the DATA command will be rejected just because none of
 the RCPT TO commands worked.  If the DATA command was properly
 rejected the client SMTP can just issue RSET, but if the DATA command
 was accepted the client SMTP should send a single dot.
 Command statuses MUST be coordinated with responses by counting each
 separate response and correlating that count with the number of
 commands known to have been issued.  Multiline responses MUST be
 supported. Matching on the basis of either the error code value or
 associated text is expressly forbidden.
 Client SMTP implementations MAY elect to operate in a nonblocking
 fashion, processing server responses immediately upon receipt, even

Freed & Cargille Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 1854 SMTP Pipelining October 1995

 if there is still data pending transmission from the client's
 previous TCP send operation. If nonblocking operation is not
 supported, however, client SMTP implementations MUST also check the
 TCP window size and make sure that each group of commands fits
 entirely within the window. The window size is usually, but not
 always, 4K octets.  Failure to perform this check can lead to
 deadlock conditions.
 Clients MUST NOT confuse responses to multiple commands with
 multiline responses. Each command requires one or more lines of
 response, the last line not containing a dash between the response
 code and the response string.

2.2. Server support of pipelining

 A server SMTP implementation that offers the pipelining extension:
  (1)   MUST NOT flush or otherwise lose the contents of the
        TCP input buffer under any circumstances whatsoever.
  (2)   SHOULD issue a positive response to the DATA command if
        and only if one or more valid RCPT TO addresses have
        been previously received.
  (3)   MUST NOT, after issuing a positive response to a DATA
        command with no valid recipients and subsequently
        receiving an empty message, send any message whatsoever
        to anybody.
  (4)   SHOULD elect to store responses to grouped RSET, MAIL
        FROM, SEND FROM, SOML FROM, SAML FROM, and RCPT TO
        commands in an internal buffer so they can sent as a
        unit.
  (5)   MUST NOT buffer responses to EHLO, DATA, VRFY, EXPN,
        TURN, QUIT, and NOOP.
  (6)   MUST NOT buffer responses to unrecognized commands.
  (7)   MUST send all pending responses immediately whenever
        the local TCP input buffer is emptied.
  (8)   MUST NOT make assumptions about commands that are yet
        to be received.
  (9)   SHOULD issue response text that indicates, either
        implicitly or explicitly, what command the response
        matches.

Freed & Cargille Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 1854 SMTP Pipelining October 1995

 The overriding intent of these server requirements is to make it as
 easy as possible for servers to conform to these pipelining
 extensions.

3. Examples

 Consider the following SMTP dialogue that does not use pipelining:
 S: <wait for open connection>
 C: <open connection to server>
 S: 220 innosoft.com SMTP service ready
 C: HELO dbc.mtview.ca.us
 S: 250 innosoft.com
 C: MAIL FROM:<mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
 S: 250 sender <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us> OK
 C: RCPT TO:<ned@innosoft.com>
 S: 250 recipient <ned@innosoft.com> OK
 C: RCPT TO:<dan@innosoft.com>
 S: 250 recipient <dan@innosoft.com> OK
 C: RCPT TO:<kvc@innosoft.com>
 S: 250 recipient <kvc@innosoft.com> OK
 C: DATA
 S: 354 enter mail, end with line containing only "."
  ...
 C: .
 S: 250 message sent
 C: QUIT
 S: 221 goodbye
 The client waits for a server response a total of 9 times in this
 simple example. But if pipelining is employed the following dialogue
 is possible:
 S: <wait for open connection>
 C: <open connection to server>
 S: 220 innosoft.com SMTP service ready
 C: EHLO dbc.mtview.ca.us
 S: 250-innosoft.com
 S: 250 PIPELINING
 C: MAIL FROM:<mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
 C: RCPT TO:<ned@innosoft.com>
 C: RCPT TO:<dan@innosoft.com>
 C: RCPT TO:<kvc@innosoft.com>
 C: DATA
 S: 250 sender <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us> OK
 S: 250 recipient <ned@innosoft.com> OK
 S: 250 recipient <dan@innosoft.com> OK
 S: 250 recipient <kvc@innosoft.com> OK

Freed & Cargille Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 1854 SMTP Pipelining October 1995

 S: 354 enter mail, end with line containing only "."
  ...
 C: .
 C: QUIT
 S: 250 message sent
 S: 221 goodbye
 The total number of turnarounds has been reduced from 9 to 4.
 The next example illustrates one possible form of behavior when
 pipelining is used and all recipients are rejected:
 S: <wait for open connection>
 C: <open connection to server>
 S: 220 innosoft.com SMTP service ready
 C: EHLO dbc.mtview.ca.us
 S: 250-innosoft.com
 S: 250 PIPELINING
 C: MAIL FROM:<mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
 C: RCPT TO:<nsb@thumper.bellcore.com>
 C: RCPT TO:<galvin@tis.com>
 C: DATA
 S: 250 sender <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us> OK
 S: 550 remote mail to <nsb@thumper.bellore.com> not allowed
 S: 550 remote mail to <galvin@tis.com> not allowed
 S: 554 no valid recipients given
 C: QUIT
 S: 221 goodbye
 The client SMTP waits for the server 4 times here as well. If the
 server SMTP does not check for at least one valid recipient prior to
 accepting the DATA command, the following dialogue would result:
 S: <wait for open connection>
 C: <open connection to server>
 S: 220 innosoft.com SMTP service ready
 C: EHLO dbc.mtview.ca.us
 S: 250-innosoft.com
 S: 250 PIPELINING
 C: MAIL FROM:<mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
 C: RCPT TO:<nsb@thumper.bellcore.com>
 C: RCPT TO:<galvin@tis.com>
 C: DATA
 S: 250 sender <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us> OK
 S: 550 remote mail to <nsb@thumper.bellore.com> not allowed
 S: 550 remote mail to <galvin@tis.com> not allowed
 S: 354 enter mail, end with line containing only "."
 C: .

Freed & Cargille Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 1854 SMTP Pipelining October 1995

 C: QUIT
 S: 554 no valid recipients
 S: 221 goodbye

4. Security Considerations

 This RFC does not discuss security issues and is not believed to
 raise any security issues not endemic in electronic mail and present
 in fully conforming implementations of [1].

5. Acknowledgements

 This document is based on the SMTP service extension model presented
 in RFC 1425. Marshall Rose's description of SMTP command pipelining
 in his book "The Internet Message" also served as a source of
 inspiration for this extension.

6. References

 [1]  Postel, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", STD 10
      RFC 821, USC/Information Sciences Institute, August
      1982.
 [2]  Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E.,
      and D. Crocker, "SMTP Service Extensions", RFC 1651,
      MCI, Innosoft, Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.,
      Network Management Associates, Inc., Silicon Graphics,
      Inc., July 1994.

7. Author's Address

 Ned Freed
 Innosoft International, Inc.
 1050 East Garvey Avenue South
 West Covina, CA 91790
 USA
 Phone: +1 818 919 3600
 Fax: +1 818 919 3614
 EMail: ned@innosoft.com

Freed & Cargille Standards Track [Page 7]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc1854.txt · Last modified: 1995/10/03 22:16 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki