errata logo graphic

Found 10 records.

Status: Verified (9)

RFC2821, "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", April 2001

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC5321

Source of RFC: drums (app)

Errata ID: 375

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Jochen Topf
Date Reported: 2004-11-23
Verifier Name: Pete Resnick
Date Verified: 2011-05-16

Section 4.2.5 says:

  When an SMTP server returns a permanent error status (5yz) code after
  the DATA command is completed with <CRLF>.<CRLF>, it MUST NOT make
  any subsequent attempt to deliver that message. 

It should say:

  When an SMTP server returns a transient failure status (4yz) code after
  the DATA command is completed with <CRLF>.<CRLF>, it MUST NOT make
  any subsequent attempt to deliver that message. 

Notes:

Fixed in RFC 5321.


Errata ID: 380

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: John C Klensin
Date Reported: 2005-09-10

 

For a more complete collection of revisions, please see 
draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-00.txt and the mailing list discussions.

The mailing list information is:

List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smtp.imc.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@imc.org?body=subscribe>


Errata ID: 376

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Joel Woods
Date Reported: 2004-03-23

Section 4.1.4 says:

   MAIL (or SEND, SOML, or SAML) MUST NOT be
   sent if a mail transaction is already open, i.e., it should be sent
   only if no mail transaction had been started in the session, or it
   the previous one successfully concluded with a successful DATA  ^^ 
   command, or if the previous one was aborted with a RSET.

It should say:

   MAIL (or SEND, SOML, or SAML) MUST NOT be
   sent if a mail transaction is already open, i.e., it should be sent
   only if no mail transaction had been started in the session, or if
   the previous one successfully concluded with a successful DATA
   command, or if the previous one was aborted with a RSET.

Errata ID: 377

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Richard O. Hammer
Date Reported: 2002-10-17

Section 5 says:

   Two types of information is used to rank the host addresses: multiple
   MX records, and multihomed hosts.

It should say:

   Two types of information are used to rank the host addresses: multiple
   MX records, and multihomed hosts.

Notes:

The verb in that sentence should be "are" not "is".


Errata ID: 378

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Richard O. Hammer
Date Reported: 2002-10-03

Section 3.7 says:

   In general, the availability of Mail eXchanger records in the domain
   name system [22, 27] makes the use of explicit source routes in the
   Internet mail system unnecessary.  Many historical problems with
   their interpretation have made their use undesirable.

It should say:

   In general, the availability of Mail eXchanger records in the domain
   name system [22, 27] makes the use of explicit source routes in the
   Internet mail system unnecessary.  Many historical problems with the 
   interpretation of explicit source routes have made their use undesirable.

Errata ID: 379

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Joel Woods
Date Reported: 2004-03-31

Section 4.5.5 says:

   All other types of messages (i.e., any message which is not required
   by a standards-track RFC to have a null reverse-path) SHOULD be sent
   with with a valid, non-null reverse-path.

It should say:

   All other types of messages (i.e., any message which is not required
   by a standards-track RFC to have a null reverse-path) SHOULD be sent
   with a valid, non-null reverse-path.

Errata ID: 381

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Vincent Lefevre
Date Reported: 2004-01-12

Section 3.7 says:

and subsequent distribution.  SMTP, as specified here, is not ideally
suited for this role, and work is underway on standardized mail
submission protocols that might eventually supercede the current practices.  
                                           ^^^^^^^^^

It should say:

and subsequent distribution.  SMTP, as specified here, is not ideally
suited for this role, and work is underway on standardized mail
submission protocols that might eventually supersede the current practices.  

Errata ID: 673

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Vincent Lefevre
Date Reported: 2004-01-12

Section 4.1.1.1 says:

available), the client SHOULD send an address literal (see section
4.1.3), optionally followed by information that will help to identify
the client system.  y The SMTP server identifies itself to the SMTP
                   ^^^

It should say:

available), the client SHOULD send an address literal (see section
4.1.3), optionally followed by information that will help to identify
the client system.  The SMTP server identifies itself to the SMTP
                    

Notes:

The "y" should be removed.


Errata ID: 674

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Vincent Lefevre
Date Reported: 2004-01-12

Section 4.1.1.1 says:

Normally, the response to EHLO will be a multiline reply.  Each line
of the response contains a keyword and, optionally, one or more
parameters.  Following the normal syntax for multiline replies, these
keyworks follow the code (250) and a hyphen for all but the last
^^^^^^^^

It should say:

Normally, the response to EHLO will be a multiline reply.  Each line
of the response contains a keyword and, optionally, one or more
parameters.  Following the normal syntax for multiline replies, these
keywords follow the code (250) and a hyphen for all but the last

Notes:

Should be "keywords".


Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC2821, "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", April 2001

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC5321

Source of RFC: drums (app)

Errata ID: 760

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported By: Wayne Schlitt
Date Reported: 2005-05-12
Held for Document Update by: Alexey Melnikov

Section 2.4.1 says:

In several places, RFC2821 refers to "section 2.4.1.".
Unfortunately there *is* no section 2.4.1.  To be quite honest, I'm
really not sure what the intended section number is.  It doesn't
appear obvious to me.

It should say:

[not submitted]

Notes:

from pending


Report New Errata