rfc1036.txt 45 KB

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556575859606162636465666768697071727374757677787980818283848586878889909192939495969798991001011021031041051061071081091101111121131141151161171181191201211221231241251261271281291301311321331341351361371381391401411421431441451461471481491501511521531541551561571581591601611621631641651661671681691701711721731741751761771781791801811821831841851861871881891901911921931941951961971981992002012022032042052062072082092102112122132142152162172182192202212222232242252262272282292302312322332342352362372382392402412422432442452462472482492502512522532542552562572582592602612622632642652662672682692702712722732742752762772782792802812822832842852862872882892902912922932942952962972982993003013023033043053063073083093103113123133143153163173183193203213223233243253263273283293303313323333343353363373383393403413423433443453463473483493503513523533543553563573583593603613623633643653663673683693703713723733743753763773783793803813823833843853863873883893903913923933943953963973983994004014024034044054064074084094104114124134144154164174184194204214224234244254264274284294304314324334344354364374384394404414424434444454464474484494504514524534544554564574584594604614624634644654664674684694704714724734744754764774784794804814824834844854864874884894904914924934944954964974984995005015025035045055065075085095105115125135145155165175185195205215225235245255265275285295305315325335345355365375385395405415425435445455465475485495505515525535545555565575585595605615625635645655665675685695705715725735745755765775785795805815825835845855865875885895905915925935945955965975985996006016026036046056066076086096106116126136146156166176186196206216226236246256266276286296306316326336346356366376386396406416426436446456466476486496506516526536546556566576586596606616626636646656666676686696706716726736746756766776786796806816826836846856866876886896906916926936946956966976986997007017027037047057067077087097107117127137147157167177187197207217227237247257267277287297307317327337347357367377387397407417427437447457467477487497507517527537547557567577587597607617627637647657667677687697707717727737747757767777787797807817827837847857867877887897907917927937947957967977987998008018028038048058068078088098108118128138148158168178188198208218228238248258268278288298308318328338348358368378388398408418428438448458468478488498508518528538548558568578588598608618628638648658668678688698708718728738748758768778788798808818828838848858868878888898908918928938948958968978988999009019029039049059069079089099109119129139149159169179189199209219229239249259269279289299309319329339349359369379389399409419429439449459469479489499509519529539549559569579589599609619629639649659669679689699709719729739749759769779789799809819829839849859869879889899909919929939949959969979989991000100110021003100410051006100710081009101010111012101310141015101610171018101910201021102210231024102510261027102810291030103110321033103410351036103710381039104010411042104310441045104610471048104910501051105210531054105510561057105810591060106110621063106410651066106710681069
  1. Network Working Group M. Horton
  2. Request for Comments: 1036 AT&T Bell Laboratories
  3. Obsoletes: RFC-850 R. Adams
  4. Center for Seismic Studies
  5. December 1987
  6. Standard for Interchange of USENET Messages
  7. STATUS OF THIS MEMO
  8. This document defines the standard format for the interchange of
  9. network News messages among USENET hosts. It updates and replaces
  10. RFC-850, reflecting version B2.11 of the News program. This memo is
  11. disributed as an RFC to make this information easily accessible to
  12. the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.
  13. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
  14. 1. Introduction
  15. This document defines the standard format for the interchange of
  16. network News messages among USENET hosts. It describes the format
  17. for messages themselves and gives partial standards for transmission
  18. of news. The news transmission is not entirely in order to give a
  19. good deal of flexibility to the hosts to choose transmission
  20. hardware and software, to batch news, and so on.
  21. There are five sections to this document. Section two defines the
  22. format. Section three defines the valid control messages. Section
  23. four specifies some valid transmission methods. Section five
  24. describes the overall news propagation algorithm.
  25. 2. Message Format
  26. The primary consideration in choosing a message format is that it
  27. fit in with existing tools as well as possible. Existing tools
  28. include implementations of both mail and news. (The notesfiles
  29. system from the University of Illinois is considered a news
  30. implementation.) A standard format for mail messages has existed
  31. for many years on the Internet, and this format meets most of the
  32. needs of USENET. Since the Internet format is extensible,
  33. extensions to meet the additional needs of USENET are easily made
  34. within the Internet standard. Therefore, the rule is adopted that
  35. all USENET news messages must be formatted as valid Internet mail
  36. messages, according to the Internet standard RFC-822. The USENET
  37. News standard is more restrictive than the Internet standard,
  38. Horton & Adams [Page 1]
  39. RFC 1036 Standard for USENET Messages December 1987
  40. placing additional requirements on each message and forbidding use
  41. of certain Internet features. However, it should always be possible
  42. to use a tool expecting an Internet message to process a news
  43. message. In any situation where this standard conflicts with the
  44. Internet standard, RFC-822 should be considered correct and this
  45. standard in error.
  46. Here is an example USENET message to illustrate the fields.
  47. From: jerry@eagle.ATT.COM (Jerry Schwarz)
  48. Path: cbosgd!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!jerry
  49. Newsgroups: news.announce
  50. Subject: Usenet Etiquette -- Please Read
  51. Message-ID: <642@eagle.ATT.COM>
  52. Date: Fri, 19 Nov 82 16:14:55 GMT
  53. Followup-To: news.misc
  54. Expires: Sat, 1 Jan 83 00:00:00 -0500
  55. Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
  56. The body of the message comes here, after a blank line.
  57. Here is an example of a message in the old format (before the
  58. existence of this standard). It is recommended that
  59. implementations also accept messages in this format to ease upward
  60. conversion.
  61. From: cbosgd!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!jerry (Jerry Schwarz)
  62. Newsgroups: news.misc
  63. Title: Usenet Etiquette -- Please Read
  64. Article-I.D.: eagle.642
  65. Posted: Fri Nov 19 16:14:55 1982
  66. Received: Fri Nov 19 16:59:30 1982
  67. Expires: Mon Jan 1 00:00:00 1990
  68. The body of the message comes here, after a blank line.
  69. Some news systems transmit news in the A format, which looks like
  70. this:
  71. Aeagle.642
  72. news.misc
  73. cbosgd!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!jerry
  74. Fri Nov 19 16:14:55 1982
  75. Usenet Etiquette - Please Read
  76. The body of the message comes here, with no blank line.
  77. A standard USENET message consists of several header lines, followed
  78. by a blank line, followed by the body of the message. Each header
  79. Horton & Adams [Page 2]
  80. RFC 1036 Standard for USENET Messages December 1987
  81. line consist of a keyword, a colon, a blank, and some additional
  82. information. This is a subset of the Internet standard, simplified
  83. to allow simpler software to handle it. The "From" line may
  84. optionally include a full name, in the format above, or use the
  85. Internet angle bracket syntax. To keep the implementations simple,
  86. other formats (for example, with part of the machine address after
  87. the close parenthesis) are not allowed. The Internet convention of
  88. continuation header lines (beginning with a blank or tab) is
  89. allowed.
  90. Certain headers are required, and certain other headers are
  91. optional. Any unrecognized headers are allowed, and will be passed
  92. through unchanged. The required header lines are "From", "Date",
  93. "Newsgroups", "Subject", "Message-ID", and "Path". The optional
  94. header lines are "Followup-To", "Expires", "Reply-To", "Sender",
  95. "References", "Control", "Distribution", "Keywords", "Summary",
  96. "Approved", "Lines", "Xref", and "Organization". Each of these
  97. header lines will be described below.
  98. 2.1. Required Header lines
  99. 2.1.1. From
  100. The "From" line contains the electronic mailing address of the
  101. person who sent the message, in the Internet syntax. It may
  102. optionally also contain the full name of the person, in parentheses,
  103. after the electronic address. The electronic address is the same as
  104. the entity responsible for originating the message, unless the
  105. "Sender" header is present, in which case the "From" header might
  106. not be verified. Note that in all host and domain names, upper and
  107. lower case are considered the same, thus "mark@cbosgd.ATT.COM",
  108. "mark@cbosgd.att.com", and "mark@CBosgD.ATt.COm" are all equivalent.
  109. User names may or may not be case sensitive, for example,
  110. "Billy@cbosgd.ATT.COM" might be different from
  111. "BillY@cbosgd.ATT.COM". Programs should avoid changing the case of
  112. electronic addresses when forwarding news or mail.
  113. RFC-822 specifies that all text in parentheses is to be interpreted
  114. as a comment. It is common in Internet mail to place the full name
  115. of the user in a comment at the end of the "From" line. This
  116. standard specifies a more rigid syntax. The full name is not
  117. considered a comment, but an optional part of the header line.
  118. Either the full name is omitted, or it appears in parentheses after
  119. the electronic address of the person posting the message, or it
  120. appears before an electronic address which is enclosed in angle
  121. brackets. Thus, the three permissible forms are:
  122. Horton & Adams [Page 3]
  123. RFC 1036 Standard for USENET Messages December 1987
  124. From: mark@cbosgd.ATT.COM
  125. From: mark@cbosgd.ATT.COM (Mark Horton)
  126. From: Mark Horton <mark@cbosgd.ATT.COM>
  127. Full names may contain any printing ASCII characters from space
  128. through tilde, except that they may not contain "(" (left
  129. parenthesis), ")" (right parenthesis), "<" (left angle bracket), or
  130. ">" (right angle bracket). Additional restrictions may be placed on
  131. full names by the mail standard, in particular, the characters ","
  132. (comma), ":" (colon), "@" (at), "!" (bang), "/" (slash), "="
  133. (equal), and ";" (semicolon) are inadvisable in full names.
  134. 2.1.2. Date
  135. The "Date" line (formerly "Posted") is the date that the message was
  136. originally posted to the network. Its format must be acceptable
  137. both in RFC-822 and to the getdate(3) routine that is provided with
  138. the Usenet software. This date remains unchanged as the message is
  139. propagated throughout the network. One format that is acceptable to
  140. both is:
  141. Wdy, DD Mon YY HH:MM:SS TIMEZONE
  142. Several examples of valid dates appear in the sample message above.
  143. Note in particular that ctime(3) format:
  144. Wdy Mon DD HH:MM:SS YYYY
  145. is not acceptable because it is not a valid RFC-822 date. However,
  146. since older software still generates this format, news
  147. implementations are encouraged to accept this format and translate
  148. it into an acceptable format.
  149. There is no hope of having a complete list of timezones. Universal
  150. Time (GMT), the North American timezones (PST, PDT, MST, MDT, CST,
  151. CDT, EST, EDT) and the +/-hhmm offset specifed in RFC-822 should be
  152. supported. It is recommended that times in message headers be
  153. transmitted in GMT and displayed in the local time zone.
  154. 2.1.3. Newsgroups
  155. The "Newsgroups" line specifies the newsgroup or newsgroups in which
  156. the message belongs. Multiple newsgroups may be specified,
  157. separated by a comma. Newsgroups specified must all be the names of
  158. existing newsgroups, as no new newsgroups will be created by simply
  159. posting to them.
  160. Horton & Adams [Page 4]
  161. RFC 1036 Standard for USENET Messages December 1987
  162. Wildcards (e.g., the word "all") are never allowed in a "News-
  163. groups" line. For example, a newsgroup comp.all is illegal,
  164. although a newsgroup rec.sport.football is permitted.
  165. If a message is received with a "Newsgroups" line listing some valid
  166. newsgroups and some invalid newsgroups, a host should not remove
  167. invalid newsgroups from the list. Instead, the invalid newsgroups
  168. should be ignored. For example, suppose host A subscribes to the
  169. classes btl.all and comp.all, and exchanges news messages with host
  170. B, which subscribes to comp.all but not btl.all. Suppose A receives
  171. a message with Newsgroups: comp.unix,btl.general.
  172. This message is passed on to B because B receives comp.unix, but B
  173. does not receive btl.general. A must leave the "Newsgroups" line
  174. unchanged. If it were to remove btl.general, the edited header
  175. could eventually re-enter the btl.all class, resulting in a message
  176. that is not shown to users subscribing to btl.general. Also,
  177. follow-ups from outside btl.all would not be shown to such users.
  178. 2.1.4. Subject
  179. The "Subject" line (formerly "Title") tells what the message is
  180. about. It should be suggestive enough of the contents of the
  181. message to enable a reader to make a decision whether to read the
  182. message based on the subject alone. If the message is submitted in
  183. response to another message (e.g., is a follow-up) the default
  184. subject should begin with the four characters "Re:", and the
  185. "References" line is required. For follow-ups, the use of the
  186. "Summary" line is encouraged.
  187. 2.1.5. Message-ID
  188. The "Message-ID" line gives the message a unique identifier. The
  189. Message-ID may not be reused during the lifetime of any previous
  190. message with the same Message-ID. (It is recommended that no
  191. Message-ID be reused for at least two years.) Message-ID's have the
  192. syntax:
  193. <string not containing blank or ">">
  194. In order to conform to RFC-822, the Message-ID must have the format:
  195. <unique@full_domain_name>
  196. where full_domain_name is the full name of the host at which the
  197. message entered the network, including a domain that host is in, and
  198. unique is any string of printing ASCII characters, not including "<"
  199. (left angle bracket), ">" (right angle bracket), or "@" (at sign).
  200. Horton & Adams [Page 5]
  201. RFC 1036 Standard for USENET Messages December 1987
  202. For example, the unique part could be an integer representing a
  203. sequence number for messages submitted to the network, or a short
  204. string derived from the date and time the message was created. For
  205. example, a valid Message-ID for a message submitted from host ucbvax
  206. in domain "Berkeley.EDU" would be "<4123@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>".
  207. Programmers are urged not to make assumptions about the content of
  208. Message-ID fields from other hosts, but to treat them as unknown
  209. character strings. It is not safe, for example, to assume that a
  210. Message-ID will be under 14 characters, that it is unique in the
  211. first 14 characters, nor that is does not contain a "/".
  212. The angle brackets are considered part of the Message-ID. Thus, in
  213. references to the Message-ID, such as the ihave/sendme and cancel
  214. control messages, the angle brackets are included. White space
  215. characters (e.g., blank and tab) are not allowed in a Message-ID.
  216. Slashes ("/") are strongly discouraged. All characters between the
  217. angle brackets must be printing ASCII characters.
  218. 2.1.6. Path
  219. This line shows the path the message took to reach the current
  220. system. When a system forwards the message, it should add its own
  221. name to the list of systems in the "Path" line. The names may be
  222. separated by any punctuation character or characters (except "."
  223. which is considered part of the hostname). Thus, the following are
  224. valid entries:
  225. cbosgd!mhuxj!mhuxt
  226. cbosgd, mhuxj, mhuxt
  227. @cbosgd.ATT.COM,@mhuxj.ATT.COM,@mhuxt.ATT.COM
  228. teklabs, zehntel, sri-unix@cca!decvax
  229. (The latter path indicates a message that passed through decvax,
  230. cca, sri-unix, zehntel, and teklabs, in that order.) Additional
  231. names should be added from the left. For example, the most recently
  232. added name in the fourth example was teklabs. Letters, digits,
  233. periods and hyphens are considered part of host names; other
  234. punctuation, including blanks, are considered separators.
  235. Normally, the rightmost name will be the name of the originating
  236. system. However, it is also permissible to include an extra entry
  237. on the right, which is the name of the sender. This is for upward
  238. compatibility with older systems.
  239. The "Path" line is not used for replies, and should not be taken as
  240. a mailing address. It is intended to show the route the message
  241. traveled to reach the local host. There are several uses for this
  242. information. One is to monitor USENET routing for performance
  243. Horton & Adams [Page 6]
  244. RFC 1036 Standard for USENET Messages December 1987
  245. reasons. Another is to establish a path to reach new hosts.
  246. Perhaps the most important use is to cut down on redundant USENET
  247. traffic by failing to forward a message to a host that is known to
  248. have already received it. In particular, when host A sends a
  249. message to host B, the "Path" line includes A, so that host B will
  250. not immediately send the message back to host A. The name each host
  251. uses to identify itself should be the same as the name by which its
  252. neighbors know it, in order to make this optimization possible.
  253. A host adds its own name to the front of a path when it receives a
  254. message from another host. Thus, if a message with path "A!X!Y!Z"
  255. is passed from host A to host B, B will add its own name to the path
  256. when it receives the message from A, e.g., "B!A!X!Y!Z". If B then
  257. passes the message on to C, the message sent to C will contain the
  258. path "B!A!X!Y!Z", and when C receives it, C will change it to
  259. "C!B!A!X!Y!Z".
  260. Special upward compatibility note: Since the "From", "Sender", and
  261. "Reply-To" lines are in Internet format, and since many USENET hosts
  262. do not yet have mailers capable of understanding Internet format, it
  263. would break the reply capability to completely sever the connection
  264. between the "Path" header and the reply function. It is recognized
  265. that the path is not always a valid reply string in older
  266. implementations, and no requirement to fix this problem is placed on
  267. implementations. However, the existing convention of placing the
  268. host name and an "!" at the front of the path, and of starting the
  269. path with the host name, an "!", and the user name, should be
  270. maintained when possible.
  271. 2.2. Optional Headers
  272. 2.2.1. Reply-To
  273. This line has the same format as "From". If present, mailed replies
  274. to the author should be sent to the name given here. Otherwise,
  275. replies are mailed to the name on the "From" line. (This does not
  276. prevent additional copies from being sent to recipients named by the
  277. replier, or on "To" or "Cc" lines.) The full name may be optionally
  278. given, in parentheses, as in the "From" line.
  279. 2.2.2. Sender
  280. This field is present only if the submitter manually enters a "From"
  281. line. It is intended to record the entity responsible for
  282. submitting the message to the network. It should be verified by the
  283. software at the submitting host.
  284. Horton & Adams [Page 7]
  285. RFC 1036 Standard for USENET Messages December 1987
  286. For example, if John Smith is visiting CCA and wishes to post a
  287. message to the network, using friend Sarah Jones' account, the
  288. message might read:
  289. From: smith@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (John Smith)
  290. Sender: jones@cca.COM (Sarah Jones)
  291. If a gateway program enters a mail message into the network at host
  292. unix.SRI.COM, the lines might read:
  293. From: John.Doe@A.CS.CMU.EDU
  294. Sender: network@unix.SRI.COM
  295. The primary purpose of this field is to be able to track down
  296. messages to determine how they were entered into the network. The
  297. full name may be optionally given, in parentheses, as in the "From"
  298. line.
  299. 2.2.3. Followup-To
  300. This line has the same format as "Newsgroups". If present, follow-
  301. up messages are to be posted to the newsgroup or newsgroups listed
  302. here. If this line is not present, follow-ups are posted to the
  303. newsgroup or newsgroups listed in the "Newsgroups" line.
  304. If the keyword poster is present, follow-up messages are not
  305. permitted. The message should be mailed to the submitter of the
  306. message via mail.
  307. 2.2.4. Expires
  308. This line, if present, is in a legal USENET date format. It
  309. specifies a suggested expiration date for the message. If not
  310. present, the local default expiration date is used. This field is
  311. intended to be used to clean up messages with a limited usefulness,
  312. or to keep important messages around for longer than usual. For
  313. example, a message announcing an upcoming seminar could have an
  314. expiration date the day after the seminar, since the message is not
  315. useful after the seminar is over. Since local hosts have local
  316. policies for expiration of news (depending on available disk space,
  317. for instance), users are discouraged from providing expiration dates
  318. for messages unless there is a natural expiration date associated
  319. with the topic. System software should almost never provide a
  320. default "Expires" line. Leave it out and allow local policies to be
  321. used unless there is a good reason not to.
  322. Horton & Adams [Page 8]
  323. RFC 1036 Standard for USENET Messages December 1987
  324. 2.2.5. References
  325. This field lists the Message-ID's of any messages prompting the
  326. submission of this message. It is required for all follow-up
  327. messages, and forbidden when a new subject is raised.
  328. Implementations should provide a follow-up command, which allows a
  329. user to post a follow-up message. This command should generate a
  330. "Subject" line which is the same as the original message, except
  331. that if the original subject does not begin with "Re:" or "re:", the
  332. four characters "Re:" are inserted before the subject. If there is
  333. no "References" line on the original header, the "References" line
  334. should contain the Message-ID of the original message (including the
  335. angle brackets). If the original message does have a "References"
  336. line, the follow-up message should have a "References" line
  337. containing the text of the original "References" line, a blank, and
  338. the Message-ID of the original message.
  339. The purpose of the "References" header is to allow messages to be
  340. grouped into conversations by the user interface program. This
  341. allows conversations within a newsgroup to be kept together, and
  342. potentially users might shut off entire conversations without
  343. unsubscribing to a newsgroup. User interfaces need not make use of
  344. this header, but all automatically generated follow-ups should
  345. generate the "References" line for the benefit of systems that do
  346. use it, and manually generated follow-ups (e.g., typed in well after
  347. the original message has been printed by the machine) should be
  348. encouraged to include them as well.
  349. It is permissible to not include the entire previous "References"
  350. line if it is too long. An attempt should be made to include a
  351. reasonable number of backwards references.
  352. 2.2.6. Control
  353. If a message contains a "Control" line, the message is a control
  354. message. Control messages are used for communication among USENET
  355. host machines, not to be read by users. Control messages are
  356. distributed by the same newsgroup mechanism as ordinary messages.
  357. The body of the "Control" header line is the message to the host.
  358. For upward compatibility, messages that match the newsgroup pattern
  359. "all.all.ctl" should also be interpreted as control messages. If no
  360. "Control" header is present on such messages, the subject is used as
  361. the control message. However, messages on newsgroups matching this
  362. pattern do not conform to this standard.
  363. Horton & Adams [Page 9]
  364. RFC 1036 Standard for USENET Messages December 1987
  365. Also for upward compatibility, if the first 4 characters of the
  366. "Subject:" line are "cmsg", the rest of the "Subject:" line should
  367. be interpreted as a control message.
  368. 2.2.7. Distribution
  369. This line is used to alter the distribution scope of the message.
  370. It is a comma separated list similar to the "Newsgroups" line. User
  371. subscriptions are still controlled by "Newsgroups", but the message
  372. is sent to all systems subscribing to the newsgroups on the
  373. "Distribution" line in addition to the "Newsgroups" line. For the
  374. message to be transmitted, the receiving site must normally receive
  375. one of the specified newsgroups AND must receive one of the
  376. specified distributions. Thus, a message concerning a car for sale
  377. in New Jersey might have headers including:
  378. Newsgroups: rec.auto,misc.forsale
  379. Distribution: nj,ny
  380. so that it would only go to persons subscribing to rec.auto or misc.
  381. for sale within New Jersey or New York. The intent of this header
  382. is to restrict the distribution of a newsgroup further, not to
  383. increase it. A local newsgroup, such as nj.crazy-eddie, will
  384. probably not be propagated by hosts outside New Jersey that do not
  385. show such a newsgroup as valid. A follow-up message should default
  386. to the same "Distribution" line as the original message, but the
  387. user can change it to a more limited one, or escalate the
  388. distribution if it was originally restricted and a more widely
  389. distributed reply is appropriate.
  390. 2.2.8. Organization
  391. The text of this line is a short phrase describing the organization
  392. to which the sender belongs, or to which the machine belongs. The
  393. intent of this line is to help identify the person posting the
  394. message, since host names are often cryptic enough to make it hard
  395. to recognize the organization by the electronic address.
  396. 2.2.9. Keywords
  397. A few well-selected keywords identifying the message should be on
  398. this line. This is used as an aid in determining if this message is
  399. interesting to the reader.
  400. 2.2.10. Summary
  401. This line should contain a brief summary of the message. It is
  402. usually used as part of a follow-up to another message. Again, it
  403. Horton & Adams [Page 10]
  404. RFC 1036 Standard for USENET Messages December 1987
  405. is very useful to the reader in determining whether to read the
  406. message.
  407. 2.2.11. Approved
  408. This line is required for any message posted to a moderated
  409. newsgroup. It should be added by the moderator and consist of his
  410. mail address. It is also required with certain control messages.
  411. 2.2.12. Lines
  412. This contains a count of the number of lines in the body of the
  413. message.
  414. 2.2.13. Xref
  415. This line contains the name of the host (with domains omitted) and a
  416. white space separated list of colon-separated pairs of newsgroup
  417. names and message numbers. These are the newsgroups listed in the
  418. "Newsgroups" line and the corresponding message numbers from the
  419. spool directory.
  420. This is only of value to the local system, so it should not be
  421. transmitted. For example, in:
  422. Path: seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!pyramid!decwrl!reid
  423. From: reid@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid)
  424. Newsgroups: news.lists,news.groups
  425. Subject: USENET READERSHIP SUMMARY REPORT FOR SEP 86
  426. Message-ID: <5658@decwrl.DEC.COM>
  427. Date: 1 Oct 86 11:26:15 GMT
  428. Organization: DEC Western Research Laboratory
  429. Lines: 441
  430. Approved: reid@decwrl.UUCP
  431. Xref: seismo news.lists:461 news.groups:6378
  432. the "Xref" line shows that the message is message number 461 in the
  433. newsgroup news.lists, and message number 6378 in the newsgroup
  434. news.groups, on host seismo. This information may be used by
  435. certain user interfaces.
  436. 3. Control Messages
  437. This section lists the control messages currently defined. The body
  438. of the "Control" header line is the control message. Messages are a
  439. sequence of zero or more words, separated by white space (blanks or
  440. tabs). The first word is the name of the control message, remaining
  441. words are parameters to the message. The remainder of the header
  442. Horton & Adams [Page 11]
  443. RFC 1036 Standard for USENET Messages December 1987
  444. and the body of the message are also potential parameters; for
  445. example, the "From" line might suggest an address to which a
  446. response is to be mailed.
  447. Implementors and administrators may choose to allow control messages
  448. to be carried out automatically, or to queue them for annual
  449. processing. However, manually processed messages should be dealt
  450. with promptly.
  451. Failed control messages should NOT be mailed to the originator of
  452. the message, but to the local "usenet" account.
  453. 3.1. Cancel
  454. cancel <Message-ID>
  455. If a message with the given Message-ID is present on the local
  456. system, the message is cancelled. This mechanism allows a user to
  457. cancel a message after the message has been distributed over the
  458. network.
  459. If the system is unable to cancel the message as requested, it
  460. should not forward the cancellation request to its neighbor systems.
  461. Only the author of the message or the local news administrator is
  462. allowed to send this message. The verified sender of a message is
  463. the "Sender" line, or if no "Sender" line is present, the "From"
  464. line. The verified sender of the cancel message must be the same as
  465. either the "Sender" or "From" field of the original message. A
  466. verified sender in the cancel message is allowed to match an
  467. unverified "From" in the original message.
  468. 3.2. Ihave/Sendme
  469. ihave <Message-ID list> [<remotesys>]
  470. sendme <Message-ID list> [<remotesys>]
  471. This message is part of the ihave/sendme protocol, which allows one
  472. host (say A) to tell another host (B) that a particular message has
  473. been received on A. Suppose that host A receives message
  474. "<1234@ucbvax.Berkeley.edu>", and wishes to transmit the message to
  475. host B.
  476. A sends the control message "ihave <1234@ucbvax.Berkeley.edu> A" to
  477. host B (by posting it to newsgroup to.B). B responds with the
  478. control message "sendme <1234@ucbvax.Berkeley.edu> B" (on newsgroup
  479. to.A), if it has not already received the message. Upon receiving
  480. Horton & Adams [Page 12]
  481. RFC 1036 Standard for USENET Messages December 1987
  482. the sendme message, A sends the message to B.
  483. This protocol can be used to cut down on redundant traffic between
  484. hosts. It is optional and should be used only if the particular
  485. situation makes it worthwhile. Frequently, the outcome is that,
  486. since most original messages are short, and since there is a high
  487. overhead to start sending a new message with UUCP, it costs as much
  488. to send the ihave as it would cost to send the message itself.
  489. One possible solution to this overhead problem is to batch requests.
  490. Several Message-ID's may be announced or requested in one message.
  491. If no Message-ID's are listed in the control message, the body of
  492. the message should be scanned for Message-ID's, one per line.
  493. 3.3. Newgroup
  494. newgroup <groupname> [moderated]
  495. This control message creates a new newsgroup with the given name.
  496. Since no messages may be posted or forwarded until a newsgroup is
  497. created, this message is required before a newsgroup can be used.
  498. The body of the message is expected to be a short paragraph
  499. describing the intended use of the newsgroup.
  500. If the second argument is present and it is the keyword moderated,
  501. the group should be created moderated instead of the default of
  502. unmoderated. The newgroup message should be ignored unless there is
  503. an "Approved" line in the same message header.
  504. 3.4. Rmgroup
  505. rmgroup <groupname>
  506. This message removes a newsgroup with the given name. Since the
  507. newsgroup is removed from every host on the network, this command
  508. should be used carefully by a responsible administrator. The
  509. rmgroup message should be ignored unless there is an "Approved:"
  510. line in the same message header.
  511. Horton & Adams [Page 13]
  512. RFC 1036 Standard for USENET Messages December 1987
  513. 3.5. Sendsys
  514. sendsys (no arguments)
  515. The sys file, listing all neighbors and the newsgroups to be sent to
  516. each neighbor, will be mailed to the author of the control message
  517. ("Reply-To", if present, otherwise "From"). This information is
  518. considered public information, and it is a requirement of membership
  519. in USENET that this information be provided on request, either
  520. automatically in response to this control message, or manually, by
  521. mailing the requested information to the author of the message.
  522. This information is used to keep the map of USENET up to date, and
  523. to determine where netnews is sent.
  524. The format of the file mailed back to the author should be the same
  525. as that of the sys file. This format has one line per neighboring
  526. host (plus one line for the local host), containing four colon
  527. separated fields. The first field has the host name of the
  528. neighbor, the second field has a newsgroup pattern describing the
  529. newsgroups sent to the neighbor. The third and fourth fields are
  530. not defined by this standard. The sys file is not the same as the
  531. UUCP L.sys file. A sample response is:
  532. From: cbosgd!mark (Mark Horton)
  533. Date: Sun, 27 Mar 83 20:39:37 -0500
  534. Subject: response to your sendsys request
  535. To: mark@cbosgd.ATT.COM
  536. Responding-System: cbosgd.ATT.COM
  537. cbosgd:osg,cb,btl,bell,world,comp,sci,rec,talk,misc,news,soc,to,
  538. test
  539. ucbvax:world,comp,to.ucbvax:L:
  540. cbosg:world,comp,bell,btl,cb,osg,to.cbosg:F:/usr/spool/outnews
  541. /cbosg
  542. cbosgb:osg,to.cbosgb:F:/usr/spool/outnews/cbosgb
  543. sescent:world,comp,bell,btl,cb,to.sescent:F:/usr/spool/outnews
  544. /sescent
  545. npois:world,comp,bell,btl,ug,to.npois:F:/usr/spool/outnews/npois
  546. mhuxi:world,comp,bell,btl,ug,to.mhuxi:F:/usr/spool/outnews/mhuxi
  547. 3.6. Version
  548. version (no arguments)
  549. The name and version of the software running on the local system is
  550. to be mailed back to the author of the message ("Reply-to" if
  551. present, otherwise "From").
  552. 3.7. Checkgroups
  553. Horton & Adams [Page 14]
  554. RFC 1036 Standard for USENET Messages December 1987
  555. The message body is a list of "official" newsgroups and their
  556. description, one group per line. They are compared against the list
  557. of active newsgroups on the current host. The names of any obsolete
  558. or new newsgroups are mailed to the user "usenet" and descriptions
  559. of the new newsgroups are added to the help file used when posting
  560. news.
  561. 4. Transmission Methods
  562. USENET is not a physical network, but rather a logical network
  563. resting on top of several existing physical networks. These
  564. networks include, but are not limited to, UUCP, the Internet, an
  565. Ethernet, the BLICN network, an NSC Hyperchannel, and a BERKNET.
  566. What is important is that two neighboring systems on USENET have
  567. some method to get a new message, in the format listed here, from
  568. one system to the other, and once on the receiving system, processed
  569. by the netnews software on that system. (On UNIX systems, this
  570. usually means the rnews program being run with the message on the
  571. standard input. <1>)
  572. It is not a requirement that USENET hosts have mail systems capable
  573. of understanding the Internet mail syntax, but it is strongly
  574. recommended. Since "From", "Reply-To", and "Sender" lines use the
  575. Internet syntax, replies will be difficult or impossible without an
  576. Internet mailer. A host without an Internet mailer can attempt to
  577. use the "Path" header line for replies, but this field is not
  578. guaranteed to be a working path for replies. In any event, any host
  579. generating or forwarding news messages must have an Internet address
  580. that allows them to receive mail from hosts with Internet mailers,
  581. and they must include their Internet address on their From line.
  582. 4.1. Remote Execution
  583. Some networks permit direct remote command execution. On these
  584. networks, news may be forwarded by spooling the rnews command with
  585. the message on the standard input. For example, if the remote
  586. system is called remote, news would be sent over a UUCP link
  587. with the command:
  588. uux - remote!rnews
  589. and on a Berknet:
  590. net -mremote rnews
  591. Horton & Adams [Page 15]
  592. RFC 1036 Standard for USENET Messages December 1987
  593. It is important that the message be sent via a reliable mechanism,
  594. normally involving the possibility of spooling, rather than direct
  595. real-time remote execution. This is because, if the remote system
  596. is down, a direct execution command will fail, and the message will
  597. never be delivered. If the message is spooled, it will eventually
  598. be delivered when both systems are up.
  599. 4.2. Transfer by Mail
  600. On some systems, direct remote spooled execution is not possible.
  601. However, most systems support electronic mail, and a news message
  602. can be sent as mail. One approach is to send a mail message which
  603. is identical to the news message: the mail headers are the news
  604. headers, and the mail body is the news body. By convention, this
  605. mail is sent to the user newsmail on the remote machine.
  606. One problem with this method is that it may not be possible to
  607. convince the mail system that the "From" line of the message is
  608. valid, since the mail message was generated by a program on a
  609. system different from the source of the news message. Another
  610. problem is that error messages caused by the mail transmission
  611. would be sent to the originator of the news message, who has no
  612. control over news transmission between two cooperating hosts
  613. and does not know whom to contact. Transmission error messages
  614. should be directed to a responsible contact person on the
  615. sending machine.
  616. A solution to this problem is to encapsulate the news message into a
  617. mail message, such that the entire message (headers and body) are
  618. part of the body of the mail message. The convention here is that
  619. such mail is sent to user rnews on the remote system. A mail
  620. message body is generated by prepending the letter N to each line of
  621. the news message, and then attaching whatever mail headers are
  622. convenient to generate. The N's are attached to prevent any special
  623. lines in the news message from interfering with mail transmission,
  624. and to prevent any extra lines inserted by the mailer (headers,
  625. blank lines, etc.) from becoming part of the news message. A
  626. program on the receiving machine receives mail to rnews, extracting
  627. the message itself and invoking the rnews program. An example in
  628. this format might look like this:
  629. Horton & Adams [Page 16]
  630. RFC 1036 Standard for USENET Messages December 1987
  631. Date: Mon, 3 Jan 83 08:33:47 MST
  632. From: news@cbosgd.ATT.COM
  633. Subject: network news message
  634. To: rnews@npois.ATT.COM
  635. NPath: cbosgd!mhuxj!harpo!utah-cs!sask!derek
  636. NFrom: derek@sask.UUCP (Derek Andrew)
  637. NNewsgroups: misc.test
  638. NSubject: necessary test
  639. NMessage-ID: <176@sask.UUCP>
  640. NDate: Mon, 3 Jan 83 00:59:15 MST
  641. N
  642. NThis really is a test. If anyone out there more than 6
  643. Nhops away would kindly confirm this note I would
  644. Nappreciate it. We suspect that our news postings
  645. Nare not getting out into the world.
  646. N
  647. Using mail solves the spooling problem, since mail must always be
  648. spooled if the destination host is down. However, it adds more
  649. overhead to the transmission process (to encapsulate and extract the
  650. message) and makes it harder for software to give different
  651. priorities to news and mail.
  652. 4.3. Batching
  653. Since news messages are usually short, and since a large number of
  654. messages are often sent between two hosts in a day, it may make
  655. sense to batch news messages. Several messages can be combined into
  656. one large message, using conventions agreed upon in advance by the
  657. two hosts. One such batching scheme is described here; its use is
  658. highly recommended.
  659. News messages are combined into a script, separated by a header of
  660. the form:
  661. #! rnews 1234
  662. where 1234 is the length of the message in bytes. Each such line is
  663. followed by a message containing the given number of bytes. (The
  664. newline at the end of each line of the message is counted as one
  665. byte, for purposes of this count, even if it is stored as <CARRIAGE
  666. RETURN><LINE FEED>.) For example, a batch of message might look
  667. like this:
  668. Horton & Adams [Page 17]
  669. RFC 1036 Standard for USENET Messages December 1987
  670. #! rnews 239
  671. From: jerry@eagle.ATT.COM (Jerry Schwarz)
  672. Path: cbosgd!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!jerry
  673. Newsgroups: news.announce
  674. Subject: Usenet Etiquette -- Please Read
  675. Message-ID: <642@eagle.ATT.COM>
  676. Date: Fri, 19 Nov 82 16:14:55 EST
  677. Approved: mark@cbosgd.ATT.COM
  678. Here is an important message about USENET Etiquette.
  679. #! rnews 234
  680. From: jerry@eagle.ATT.COM (Jerry Schwarz)
  681. Path: cbosgd!mhuxj!mhuxt!eagle!jerry
  682. Newsgroups: news.announce
  683. Subject: Notes on Etiquette message
  684. Message-ID: <643@eagle.ATT.COM>
  685. Date: Fri, 19 Nov 82 17:24:12 EST
  686. Approved: mark@cbosgd.ATT.COM
  687. There was something I forgot to mention in the last
  688. message.
  689. Batched news is recognized because the first character in the
  690. message is #. The message is then passed to the unbatcher for
  691. interpretation.
  692. The second argument (in this example rnews) determines which
  693. batching scheme is being used. Cooperating hosts may use whatever
  694. scheme is appropriate for them.
  695. 5. The News Propagation Algorithm
  696. This section describes the overall scheme of USENET and the
  697. algorithm followed by hosts in propagating news to the entire
  698. logical network. Since all hosts are affected by incorrectly
  699. formatted messages and by propagation errors, it is important
  700. for the method to be standardized.
  701. USENET is a directed graph. Each node in the graph is a host
  702. computer, and each arc in the graph is a transmission path from
  703. one host to another host. Each arc is labeled with a newsgroup
  704. pattern, specifying which newsgroup classes are forwarded along
  705. that link. Most arcs are bidirectional, that is, if host A
  706. sends a class of newsgroups to host B, then host B usually sends
  707. the same class of newsgroups to host A. This bidirectionality
  708. is not, however, required.
  709. USENET is made up of many subnetworks. Each subnet has a name, such
  710. Horton & Adams [Page 18]
  711. RFC 1036 Standard for USENET Messages December 1987
  712. as comp or btl. Each subnet is a connected graph, that is, a path
  713. exists from every node to every other node in the subnet. In
  714. addition, the entire graph is (theoretically) connected. (In
  715. practice, some political considerations have caused some hosts to be
  716. unable to post messages reaching the rest of the network.)
  717. A message is posted on one machine to a list of newsgroups. That
  718. machine accepts it locally, then forwards it to all its neighbors
  719. that are interested in at least one of the newsgroups of the
  720. message. (Site A deems host B to be "interested" in a newsgroup if
  721. the newsgroup matches the pattern on the arc from A to B. This
  722. pattern is stored in a file on the A machine.) The hosts receiving
  723. the incoming message examine it to make sure they really want the
  724. message, accept it locally, and then in turn forward the message to
  725. all their interested neighbors. This process continues until the
  726. entire network has seen the message.
  727. An important part of the algorithm is the prevention of loops. The
  728. above process would cause a message to loop along a cycle forever.
  729. In particular, when host A sends a message to host B, host B will
  730. send it back to host A, which will send it to host B, and so on.
  731. One solution to this is the history mechanism. Each host keeps
  732. track of all messages it has seen (by their Message-ID) and
  733. whenever a message comes in that it has already seen, the incoming
  734. message is discarded immediately. This solution is sufficient to
  735. prevent loops, but additional optimizations can be made to avoid
  736. sending messages to hosts that will simply throw them away.
  737. One optimization is that a message should never be sent to a machine
  738. listed in the "Path" line of the header. When a machine name is
  739. in the "Path" line, the message is known to have passed through the
  740. machine. Another optimization is that, if the message originated
  741. on host A, then host A has already seen the message. Thus, if a
  742. message is posted to newsgroup misc.misc, it will match the pattern
  743. misc.all (where all is a metasymbol that matches any string), and
  744. will be forwarded to all hosts that subscribe to misc.all (as
  745. determined by what their neighbors send them). These hosts make up
  746. the misc subnetwork. A message posted to btl.general will reach all
  747. hosts receiving btl.all, but will not reach hosts that do not get
  748. btl.all. In effect, the messages reaches the btl subnetwork. A
  749. messages posted to newsgroups misc.misc,btl.general will reach all
  750. hosts subscribing to either of the two classes.
  751. Notes
  752. <1> UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T.
  753. Horton & Adams [Page 19]