RFC 2162

Network Working Group                                      C. Allocchio
Request for Comments: 2162                             I.N.F.N. - Italy
Obsoletes: 1405                                            January 1998
Category: Experimental

           MaXIM-11 - Mapping between X.400 / Internet mail
                              Mail-11 mail

Status of this Memo

   This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
   community.  It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
   Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.


   This document describes a set of mappings which will enable inter
   working between systems operating the ISO/IEC 10021 - CCITT (now ITU)
   X.400 Recommendations on Message Handling Systems, and systems
   running the Mail-11 (also known as DECnet mail or VMSmail) protocol.
   The specifications are valid both within DECnet Phase IV and
   DECnet/OSI addressing and routing scheme.

   The complete scenario of X.400 / MIME / Mail-11 is also considered,
   in order to cover the possible complex cases arising in multiple
   gateway translations.

   This document covers mainly the X.400 O/R address to/from Mail-11
   address mapping and the RFC822 to/from Mail-11 ones; other mappings
   are based on MIXER specifications. Bodypart mappings are not
   specified in this document: MIXER and MIME-MHS specifications can be
   applied to map bodyparts between X.400, MIME and Mail-11, too. In
   fact MIME encoding can be used without modifications within Mail-11
   text bodyparts.

   This document obsoletes RFC 1405, which was a combined effort of
   TERENA Working Group on Messaging, and the IETF X.400 Ops Working
   Group. This update was prepared by IETF MIXER working group.

Allocchio                     Experimental                      [Page 1]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1. X.400

   The standard referred shortly into this document as "X.400" relates
   to the ISO/IEC 10021 - CCITT 1984, 1988 and 1992 X.400 Series
   Recommendations covering the Message Oriented Text Interchange
   Service (MOTIS). This document covers the Inter Personal Messaging
   System (IPMS) only.

1.2. Mail-11

   Mail-11, also known as DECnet mail and often improperly referred as
   VMSmail, is the proprietary protocol implemented by Digital Equipment
   Corporation (DEC) to establish a real-time text messaging system
   among systems implementing the DECnet Phase IV and DECnet/OSI (CLNS)
   networking protocols.

1.3. RFC822 / MIME

   RFC822 was defined as a standard for personal messaging systems
   within the DARPA Internet and is now diffused on top of many
   different message transfer protocols, like SMTP, UUCP, BITNET, JNT
   Grey Book, CSnet. MIME specifications allows transport of non-textual
   information into RFC822 messages. Their mapping with X.400 is fully
   described in MIXER and MIME-MHS. In this document we will consider
   their relations with Mail-11, too.

1.4. The user community

   The community using MIME or X.400 messaging system is currently
   growing in the whole world, but there is still a number of very large
   communities using Mail-11 based messaging systems willing to
   communicate easily with X.400 based Message Handling Systems and with
   MIME based systems. Among these large DECnet based networks we can
   include the High Energy Physics network (HEPnet) and the Space
   Physics Analysis Network (SPAN).

   Many other local communities actively use internally Mail-11 mailing
   protocols. As any other "non standard" mail protocol, using non
   standard mapping techniques between Mail-11 and standard mail systems
   can produce unpredictable results.

   For these reasons a set of rules covering conversion between Mail-11
   and X.400 or MIME is described in this document.

Allocchio                     Experimental                      [Page 2]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

   This document also covers the case of Mail-11 systems implementing
   the "foreign mail protocol" allowing Mail-11 to interface other mail
   systems, including RFC822 based system.

Chapter 2 - Message Elements

2.1. Service Elements

   Mail-11 protocol offers a very restricted set of elements composing a
   Inter Personal Message (IPM), whereas X.400 and RFC822/MIME
   specifications support a complex and large amount of service
   elements.  Considering the case where a message is relayed between
   two X.400 MHS or MIME Message Transport System (MTS) via a Mail-11
   messaging system this could result in a nearly complete loss of

   To minimise the inconvenience, any of the X.400 or MIME service
   elements which do not map directly into Mail-11 equivalent ones
   accordingly to this specification, will be included into Mail-11 text
   body parts as an additional RFC822-like header; this additional
   header will be inserted between the Mail-11 P2 headers (From:, To:,
   CC:, Subj:) and the other Mail-11 bodyparts. In particular, X.400
   elements will also be at first converted into textual representation
   before insertion.

   An example, where a multimedia message has been encoded into mail-11
   after having crossed also a MIME-MHS (MIXER conformant) gateway:

     From:  smtp%"Admin@SURFnet.nl"  "Erik"  18-OCT-1994 13:55:00.49
     To:    ALLOCCHIO
     CC:    smtp%"netman@MailFLOW.dante.net"
     Subj:  enjoy this nice picture!

     X400-Originator: root@sun3.SURFnet.nl
     X400-Recipients: Allocchio@elettra.ts.it, netman@MailFLOW.dante.net
     Sender: Erik Newmann <root@SURFnet.nl>
     Organisation: SURFnet bv
     Mime-Version: 1.0
     Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----- =_aaaaaa0"
     Content-ID: <21223.78342785@SURFnet.nl>

     ------- =_aaaaaa0
     Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
     Content-ID: <21223.78342785@SURFnet.nl>

     look... you never saw this one!!
     I just include the picture in the next bodypart
     and I hope you get it fine.

Allocchio                     Experimental                      [Page 3]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998


     Erik                                         (continues...)

     ------- =_aaaaaa0                            (continued...)
     Content-Type: image/gif
     Content-ID: <21223.78342785@SURFnet.nl>
     Content-Description: a nice snapshot!
     Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64


     ------- =_aaaaaa0

   We need, in fact, to consider also the case when a message originates
   from a network implementing RFC822/MIME protocols and is relayed via
   Mail-11 to an X.400 MHS, or vice versa.

   Whenever any X.400 element not covered in this specification needs to
   be converted into textual representation (to be included into a
   Mail-11 RFC822-like header or text bodypart) we will apply the rules
   specified in MIXER (X.400 to RFC822/MIME sections).

   Vice versa, MIXER specification (RFC822/MIME to X.400 sections) also
   gives the correct rules to convert from textual representations
   contained into Mail-11 RFC822-like header or bodyparts into X.400

   On the other hand, RFC822/MIME headers not covered by this
   specification are included 'as they are' into Mail-11 RFC822-like
   header and bodyparts. The way back from Mail-11 to RFC822/MIME
   structure becomes thus straightforward.

   The above methods assures maximum transparency and minimal or null
   loss of information also when Mail-11 is involved.

Allocchio                     Experimental                      [Page 4]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

2.2. Mail-11 service elements to X.400 service elements.

   All envelope (P1) and header (P2) Mail-11 service elements are
   supported in the conversion to X.400. Note that Mail-11 P1 is solely
   composed by P1-11.From and P1-11.To, and any other Mail-11 element
   belongs to Mail-11 P2:

        - P1-11.From
                maps to P1.Originator

        - P1-11.To
                maps to P1.Primary Recipient

        - P2-11.'From:'
                usually maps to P2.Originator (see section 2.6)

        - P2-11.'To:'
                maps to P2.Primary Recipient

        - P2-11.'CC:'
                maps to P2.Copy Recipient

        - P2-11.Date
                maps to P2.Submission Time Stamp

        - P2-11.'Subj:'
                maps to P2.Subject

   Any eventual RFC822-like text header in Mail-11 body part will be
   interpreted as specified into MIXER.

2.3. X.400 service elements to Mail-11 service elements

   The following X.400 service elements are supported directly into
   Mail-11 conversion:

        - P1.Originator
                maps to P1-11.'From:'

        - P1.Primary Recipients
                maps to P1-11.'To:'

        - P2.Originator
                usually maps to P2-11.'From:' (see section 2.6)

        - P2.Primary Recipients
                maps to P2-11.'To:'

Allocchio                     Experimental                      [Page 5]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

        - P2.Copy Recipients
                maps to P2-11.'CC:'

        - P2.Submission Time Stamp
                maps to P2-11.Date

        - P2.Subject
                maps to P2-11.'Subj:'

   The following X.400 service element is partially supported into
   Mail-11 conversion:

        - P2.Blind Copy Recipient
                to ensure the required privacy, when a message contains
                a BCC address, the following actions occurs:
                - a new message is created, containing the body parts;
                - a new envelope is added to the new message, containing
                  the originator and the BCC recipient addresses only;
                - a note is added to the message informing the BCC
                  recipient about the fact that the message was a BCC;
                - the new message is delivered separately;
                - a note is added to the message delivered to TO and CC
                  recipients informing them about the fact that there
                  were some BCC recipients, too.

   Any other X.400 service element support is done accordingly to MIXER
   including the mapped element into the RFC822-like header into Mail-11
   body part.

2.4. Mail-11 service elements to RFC822/MIME service elements.

   All envelope (P1) and header (P2) Mail-11 service elements are
   supported in the conversion to RFC822/MIME:

        - P1-11.From
                maps to 822-MTS.Originator

        - P1-11.To
                maps to 822-MTS.Primary Recipient

        - P2-11.'From:'
                usually maps to 822.'From:' (see section 2.6)

        - P2-11.'To:'
                maps to 822.'To:'

        - P2-11.'CC:'
                maps to 822.'Cc:'

Allocchio                     Experimental                      [Page 6]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

        - P2-11.Date
                maps to 822.'Date:'

        - P2-11.'Subj:'
                maps to 822.'Subject:'

   Any eventual RFC822-like text header in Mail-11 body part will be
   re-inserted into RFC822/MIME message 'as it is'.

2.5. RFC822/MIME service elements to Mail-11 service elements

   The following RFC822 service elements are supported directly into
   Mail-11 conversion:

        - 822-MTS.Originator
                maps to P1-11.From

        - 822-MTS.Primary Recipients
                maps to P1-11.To

        - 822.'From:'
                usually maps to P2-11.'From:' (see section 2.5)

        - 822.'To:'
                maps to P2-11.'To:'

        - 822.'Cc:'
                maps to P2-11.'CC:'

        - 822.'Date:'
                maps to P2-11.Date

        - 822.'Subject:'
                maps to P2-11.'Subj:'

Allocchio                     Experimental                      [Page 7]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

   The following RFC822 service element is partially supported into
   Mail-11 conversion:

        - 822.'Bcc:'
                to ensure the required privacy, when a message contains
                a BCC address, the following actions occurs:
                - a new message is created, containing the body parts;
                - a new envelope is added to the new message, containing
                  the originator and the BCC recipient addresses only;
                - a note is added to the message informing the BCC
                  recipient about the fact that the message was a BCC;
                - the new message is delivered separately;
                - a note is added to the message delivered to TO and CC
                  recipients informing them about the fact that there
                  were some BCC recipients, too.

   Any other RFC822/MIME service element support is done simply
   including the element 'as it is' into the RFC822-like header and into
   a Mail-11 body part.

2.6. Rules to define the Mail-11 P2-11.'From:' element

   Mail-11 User Agents (usually VMSmail) uses the P2-11.'From:' element
   as destination in case the REPLY command is issued, ignoring any
   other specification like 'Sender:' 'Reply-To:' 'Return-Path:' etc.
   Also a number of automatic responders uses this field only to address
   their messages.

   Is it thus essential to insert into this field the correct
   information, i.e. the correct address where, according to X.400 or
   RFC822 rules the REPLY command or any automatically generated message
   should go.

   The rules specified in RFC822, section 4.4.4 should be used as a
   selection criterion to define the content of this field.

   In particular, in case the P2-11.'From:' element is not generated
   from the P2.Originator (X.400) or from the 822.'From:' (RFC822), it
   is essential to preserve into a 'From:' record of the RFC822-like
   header the original information contained into the P2.Originator or
   822.'From:' fields.

Allocchio                     Experimental                      [Page 8]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

   Vice versa, when converting from Mail-11 into X.400 or RFC822/MIME
   the information contained into the 'From:' field of the RFC822-like
   header (if present) will supersede the one contained into the Mail-11
   P2-11.'From:'. An example:

     From:  smtp%"Admin@SURFnet.nl"  "Erik"  18-OCT-1994 13:55:00.49
     To:    ALLOCCHIO
     CC:    smtp%"netman@MailFLOW.dante.net"
     Subj:  enjoy this nice picture!

     From: Erik Newmann <root@SURFnet.nl>
     Reply-To: Admin@SURFnet.nl
     Organisation: SURFnet bv
     Message-Id: <21235.25442281@SURFnet.nl>

   when converting back into RFC822 the header will be:

     From: Erik Newmann <root@SURFnet.nl>
     Reply-To: Admin@SURFnet.nl
     To: Allocchio@elettra.ts.it
     Cc: netman@MailFLOW.dante.net
     Subject: enjoy this nice picture!
     Organisation: SURFnet bv
     Message-Id: <21235.25442281@SURFnet.nl>

   The described method, although violating canonical conversion
   principles, assures the maximum functionality to the users, and
   provides consistency in case of multiple conversions for a single

Chapter 3 - Basic Mappings

   The basic mappings indicated in MIXER and its updates should be fully

   A special consideration must be used for encoding RFC822 addresses
   containing quotes '"' into Mail-11. In fact Mail-11 addresses cannot
   contain that special character, as it is reserved to delimit "quoted
   strings" themselves, as when using the Mail-11 foreign mail protocol.
   An example:

      "John Poe"@Mixergw.local.ca.us    (RFC822)

   cannot be included in a Mail-11 foreign mail protocol address 'as
   is', due to the quotes in the LHS section. Quotes must thus be
   encoded.  MIXER specifies exactly how to encode quotes and other
   characters when translating RFC822 addresses into X.400. Mail-11
   addresses are not limited to printablestring, as for X.400, but a

Allocchio                     Experimental                      [Page 9]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

   subset of the MIXER encoding can be used for the quotes character,
   and, as a direct consequence, for open and closed round brackets '('
   and ')':

      smtp%"(q)John Poe(q)@Mixergw.local.ca.us"

Chapter 4 - Addressing - Mail-11 / X.400

4.1. Mail-11 addressing

   Mail-11 addressing can vary from a very simple case up to complex
   ones, if there are other Mail-11 to "something-else" gateways
   involved. In any case a Mail-11 address is an ASCII string composed
   of different elements.

4.2. X.400 addressing

   On the other hand, An X.400 O/R address is a collection of
   attributes, which can anyway be presented as an IA5 textual
   representation as defined in RFC1685 and CCITT F.401, Annex B.

4.3. Mail-11 address components

   Let us start defining the different parts composing a Mail-11
   address. Mail-11 addresses syntax is slightly different between Phase
   IV and DECnet/OSI cases:

   - Phase IV:  we consider a Mail-11 address as composed by 3 parts:

        [route] [node::] local-part

   where 'route' and 'node' are optional and only 'local-part' is

   - DECnet/OSI: we consider a Mail-11 address as composed by 3 parts:

        [net:] [node-clns::] local-part

   where 'net and 'node-clns' are optional and only 'local-part' is

   Here comes a formal definition of these elements

     node = *(ALPHA/DIGIT) / *DIGIT / *DIGIT "." *DIGIT

     route = *(node "::")

     subdomain = *(ALPHA/DIGIT)

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 10]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

     node-clns = *("." subdomain)

     net = *(ALPHA/DIGIT)

     local-part = username / nickname / for-protocol

     username = *(ALPHA/DIGIT)

     nickname = <printablestring - <" " and HTAB>>

     for-protocol = (f-pref f-sep <">f-address<">)

     f-pref = *(ALPHA/DIGIT)

     f-sep = "%" / "::"

     f-address = printablestring / RFC822-address / X400-text-address

     X400-text-address = <textual representation of an X.400 O/R addr>

     Please note that in x400-text-address both the ";" notation and the
     "/" notation are equivalent and allowed (see examples in different

        Some examples (Phase IV):

           route           node    local-part

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 11]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

   Some examples (DECnet/OSI):

      net  node              local-part

   Note that also in DECnet/OSI there can be Phase IV like node names,
   the so called "Phase IV compatibility node names", but no 'route'
   term is allowed in front of them. In case the address consists of a
   DECnet/OSI 'net' and/or 'node' specification, plus an old Phase IV
   node address (like the last one in above examples) we consider the
   old Phese IV node name (GX409A) as 'local-part'.

Chapter 5 - Mapping - Mail-11 / X.400

5.1. Mapping scheme

   DECnet phase IV address field is somehow a 'flat land' with some
   obliged routes to reach some hidden areas. Thus a truly hierarchical
   mapping scheme using mapping rules as suitable for RFC822 is not the
   appropriate solution. A fixed set of encoding rules using DDAs
   support is defined in order to define the mapping.

   DECnet/OSI address field is, on the other hand, hyerarchical,
   implementing a real domain style organization, resembling very
   closely the RFC822 domain addresses. However also in DECnet/OSI
   networks the old Phase IV flat addresing schema remains valid,
   expecially for the so called 'Phase IV short aliases'. For this
   reason, and to keep mapping as simple as possible, the same set of
   fixed rules usind DDAs encoding will be used both for Phase IV and
   DECnet/OSI addresses.

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 12]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

   Another important aspect of the problem is the coexistence in DECnet
   phase IV of many disjoint networks, using the same DECnet address
   space, i.e., common X.400 and/or RFC822 mailing system acting as glue
   to connect different isolated Mail-11 islands. In DECnet/OSI this
   aspect is more canonically approached, introducing the concept of
   'net', a unique name identifying the single internally fully
   interconnected DECnet network sharing the same DECnet/OSI name space.

   To identify uniquely each DECnet Phase IV network we will thus extend
   the concept of DECnet/OSI 'net' also to this case. We define as 'net'
   in Phase IV a unique ASCII string identifying the DECnet network we
   are connected to. If the Phase IV network is already migrating and
   thus interconnected to DECnet/OSI areas, the 'net' identifier already
   used in the DECnet/OSI areas is automatically extended to the whole
   DECnet community.

   If the network still uses Phase IV protocols only, a 'net' identifier
   must be chosen. In this case the 'net' element will identify the
   DECnet community being served, but it could also differ from the
   actual official network name. It is reccommended that the same 'net'
   identifier will be adopted unmodified when the eventual migration to
   DECnet/OSI will take place within that DECnet community.

   Aliases are allowed for the 'net' identifier. Some well known
   identifiers and aliases:

       net = 'OMNI'         the High Energy Physics & Space Physics
                            DECnet network;


       net = 'HEPnet'       alias for 'OMNI'
       net = 'SPAN'         alias for 'OMNI'

   The need of labelling each DECnet network with its name comes also
   from the requirement to implement the 'intelligent' gateway, i.e.,
   the gateway which is able to understand its ability to connect
   directly to the specified DECnet network, even if the O/R address
   specify a path to a different gateway. A more detailed discussion of
   the problem is in 5.3 and 5.5.

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 13]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

   A registry of 'net' attributes to insure uniqueness of names must be
   established: this registry is the same one created for migration to
   DECnet/OSI. A simple table coupling 'net' and the gateway address is
   also used, in a syntax similar to the 'gate1' and 'gate2' tables used
   in MIXER. An example:


   Ambiguous left entries are allowed. Gateway implementations could
   simply choose among one of the specified gateways, or try them all in
   cyclic order to obtain better performances.

   Note that aliases are established using this gate table, too: simply
   add equivalent entries into the table, like the 'HEPnet' and 'SPAN'
   entries. Aliases, however, must be used only to enable users to use
   commonly used names, but any  gateway implementing this specification
   must generate addresses with official 'net' names, only ('OMNI' for
   the above table).

   The Mail-11 gateways table, however, just constitutes the list of the
   the appropriate MIXER address translation) RFC822 world. Any other
   gateway implementing this specification (and the related ones) should
   use its local name as first choice for the Mail-11 'net' it can
   reach, and use the official Mail-11 gateway table to reach only the
   non connected ones. This list of Mail-11 gateway entries is supposed
   to contain the list of 'net' tags and their aliases; as this list is
   usually small, currently we do not take into account distribution
   mechanisms for this information different from a static table.

   In order to keep the mapping rules very simple, avoiding the need to
   analyse Mail-11 addresses to distinguish the 'route', 'node', and
   Attributes (DDAs) needed to cover the mapping problem.

5.2. Mail-11 --> X.400

   We define the following Domain Defined Attributes to map a Mail-11


Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 14]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

   We thus define the Mail-11 Phase IV mapping rule:


      maps into

        C=xx; ADMD=yyy; PRMD=zzz; O=ooo; OU=uuu; DD.Dnet=net;

   Meanwhile we define the mapping rule for Mail-11 DECnet/OSI:


      maps into

        C=xx; ADMD=yyy; PRMD=zzz; O=ooo; OU=uuu; DD.Dnet=net;


        xx  = country code of the gateway performing the conversion
        yyy = Admd of the gateway performing the conversion
        zzz = Prmd of the gateway performing the conversion
        ooo = Organisation of the gateway performing the conversion
        uuu = Org. Unit(s) of the gateway performing the conversion
        net = name of the DECnet network (e.g., OMNI, HEPnet, SPAN,...)

   ('zzz','ooo','uuu' being used or dropped appropriately in order to
   identify uniquely within the X.400 MHS the gateway performing the

   The following defaults also apply:

   if 'node' (or 'node-clns') is missing and we are mapping the Mail-11
   originator (From) then 'node' (or 'node-clns') defaults to the DECnet
   node name of the gateway (gwnode);

   if 'node' (or 'node-clns') is missing and we are mapping the Mail-11
   recipient (To, Cc) then 'node' (or 'node-clns') defaults to the
   DECnet node name of the 'From' address.

   if 'net' is missing, then it defaults to a value defined locally by
   the gateway: if the gateway is connected to one DECnet network only,
   then 'net' will be the name of this unique network; if the gateway is
   connected to more than one DECnet network, then the gateway will
   establish a 'first choice' DECnet network, and 'net' will default to
   this value.

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 15]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

   The 'node' syntax (DECnet/OSI or Phase IV) depends on the DECnet
   protocol implemented and on the value of a system parameter (usually
   the MAIL$SYSTEM_FLAGS one) on the gateway host.

   In case 'local-part' contains 'x400-text-address' see also section

   In case 'local-part' contains 'RFC822-address' see also section

5.2.1. Examples

   Let us suppose that:

     - the DECnet network name (net) is 'OMNI';
     - the DECnet node name of the gateway (gwnode) is '.IT.DM.X4TDEC'
       alias 'X4TDEC' in Phase IV;
     - the Country Code of the gateway is 'IT' and its ADMD is 'garr'
       (and these two fields are enough to identify uniquely the gateway
       within the X.400 MHS).

     C=it; ADMD=garr; DD.Dnet=OMNI; DD.Mail-11=.IT.DM.X4TDEC::USER47;

     C=it; ADMD=garr; DD.Dnet=OMNI; DD.Mail-11=MYNODE::BETTY;

     C=it; ADMD=garr; DD.Dnet=OMNI; DD.Mail-11=BOSTON::GOOFY1::MARY34;

     C=it; ADMD=garr; DD.Dnet=OMNI;

     C=it; ADMD=garr; DD.Dnet=OMNI;

     C=it; ADMD=garr; DD.Dnet=ENET;

     C=it; ADMD=garr; DD.Dnet=OMNI;

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 16]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

     C=it; ADMD=garr; DD.Dnet=OMNI;

5.3. X.400 encoding of Mail-11 --> Mail-11

   In order to assure path reversibility in case of multiple Mail-
   11/X.400 gateway crossing we must distinguish two cases:

   - DD.Dnet=net is known to the gateway as one of the DECnet networks
     it is connected to. In this case the mapping is trivial:

        C=xx; ADMD=yyy; PRMD=zzz; O=ooo; OU=uuu; DD.Dnet=net;

   (see sect. 5.2 for explication of 'xx','yyy','zzz','ooo','uuu','net')

   maps into


   and for DECnet/OSI addresses

        C=xx; ADMD=yyy; PRMD=zzz; O=ooo; OU=uuu; DD.Dnet=net;

   maps into


   - DD.Dnet=net is NOT known to the gateway as one of the DECnet
     networks it is connected to. In this case the mapping rule
     described into section 5.4 apply:

        C=xx; ADMD=yyy; PRMD=www; DD.Dnet=net;

   maps into


Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 17]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

   Again for DECnet/OSI addresses:

        C=xx; ADMD=yyy; PRMD=www; DD.Dnet=net;

   maps into


5.3.1. Examples

   Let us suppose that:

     - the DECnet network name (net) is 'OMNI';
     - the DECnet node name of the gateway (gwnode) is '.IT.DM.X4TDEC';
       alias 'X4TDEC' in Phase IV;
     - the Country Code of the gateway is 'IT' and its ADMD is 'garr';

     (and these two fields are enough to identify uniquely the gateway
     within the X.400 MHS).

     C=it; ADMD=garr; DD.Dnet=OMNI;

     C=it; ADMD=garr; DD.Dnet=EASYNET; DD.Mail-11=ROM01::CARLO;

   (in the above example 'EASYNET' is supposed to be not connected to
   our gateway located on .IT.DM.X4TDEC DECnet node).

5.4. X.400 --> Mail-11

   The mapping of an X.400 O/R address into Mail-11 is done encoding the
   various attributes into the X400-text-address as defined in chapter 4
   of MIXER, and including this as 'f-address'. A 'f-pref' and a the
   DECnet node name of the gateway.

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 18]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998



   will be encoded like


   having spaces dividing attributes as optional.

5.4.1. Example

   Let us suppose that:

     - the DECnet node name of the gateway (gwnode) is '.IT.DM.X4TDEC'
       alias 'X4TDEC' in Phase IV, and 'net' is 'OMNI'


      C=gb; ADMD=G400; PRMD=AC.UK; O=ucl; S=Clay;

   will be encoded like


   or its equivalent with the ";" notation and DECnet/OSI 'node'


5.5. Mail-11 encoding of X.400 --> X.400

   It can happen that Mail-11 is used to relay messages between X.400
   systems; this will mean multiple X.400/Mail-11 gateway crossing and
   we will encounter Mail-11 addresses containing embedded X.400
   informations. In order to assure path reversibility we must then
   distinguish two cases:

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 19]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

   - the embedded X.400 address belongs to a domain whose naming and
     routing rules are known to the global X.400 MHS.  In this case the
     mapping is trivial:


     or (for DECnet/OSI)


   maps into


      'route' and 'gwnode' are mapped into X.400 Trace service elements.

   - the encoded X.400 domain does not belong to the global X.400 name
     space. In this case the mapping rule described into section 5.2


   maps into

       C=xx; ADMD=yyy; DD.Dnet=net;

   and (for DECnet/OSI)


   maps into

       C=xx; ADMD=yyy; DD.Dnet=net;

   The latter case is deprecated and must be regarded as a possible
   temporary solution only, while waiting to include into the global
   X.400 MHS also this domain.

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 20]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

5.5.1. Examples

   Let us suppose that:

     - the DECnet network name (net) is 'OMNI';
     - the DECnet node name of the gateway (gwnode) is '.IT.DM.X4TDEC'
       alias 'X4TDEC' in Phase IV;
     - the Country Code of the gateway is 'IT' and its ADMD is 'garr';
       (and these two fields are enough to identify uniquely the
       gateway within the X.400 MHS).

       C=fr; ADMD=atlas; PRMD=ifip; O=poly; S=Moreau;

     X4TDEC::gw%"C=zz;ADMD= ;PRMD=Botwa;O=Miner;S=Chiuaw;"
       C=it; ADMD=garr; DD.Dnet=OMNI;
       DD.Mail-11=X4TDEC::gw(p)(q)C=zz;ADMD= ;

   (in the above example  C=zz is unknown to the global X.400 MHS)

Chapter 6 - Mapping - Mail-11 / RFC822

6.1 Introduction

   The implementation of a Mail-11 - RFC822 gateway was faced by many
   software developers independently, and was included in many mail
   products which were running on both VMS and UNIX systems. As there
   was not a unique standard mapping way, the implementations resulted
   into a number of possible variant methods to map a Mail-11 address
   into an RFC822 one. Some of these products became then largely
   widespread, starting to create a number of de facto mapping methods.

   In this chapter some sort of standardisation of the mapping problem
   is considered, trying to be compatible with the existing installed
   software. We must also remind that, in some cases, only simple Mail-
   11 addresses could be mapped into RFC822, having complex ones
   producing all sort of quite strange results. In case DECnet/OSI
   Mail-11 addresses are involved we must also notice that only one
   mapping method can be used from/to RFC822 addresses.

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 21]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

   On the other hand, the mapping of an RFC822 address in Mail-11 was
   quite straightforward, resulting in a common definition which uses
   "Mail-11 foreign mail protocol" to design an RFC822 address:




   or again for DECnet/OSI addresses




6.2 De facto implementations

   A considerable number of de-facto implementations of Mail-11/RFC822
   gateways is existing. As said in the introduction, the mapping of
   RFC822 addresses in Mail-11 is accomplished using the foreign mail
   protocol syntax and is thus unique.

   On the other hand, Mail-11 addresses are encoded in RFC822 syntax in
   various ways. Here are the most common ones:

        a) "node::user"@gateway-address
        b) user%node@gateway-address
        c) user@node.decnet.domains
        d) user%node.dnet@gateway-address

Let's have a quick look to these different choices.

   a - This form simply encloses as quoted Left Hand Side string the
       original Mail-11 address into the RFC822 address of the
       Mail-11/RFC822 gateway. This method is fully conformant with
       RFC822 syntax, and the Mail-11 address is left untouched; thus
       no encoding rules need to applied to it. This method applies also
       easily to DECnet/OSI Mail-11 addresses.

   b - As one will immediately notice, this form has nothing in it
       indicating the address is a Mail-11 one; this makes the encoding
       indistinguishable from a similar encoding of RSCS (BITnet)
       addresses used by some IBM VM Mailer systems. It should thus be

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 22]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

   c - In this case a sort of 'reserved word' (DECnet)  embedded into
       the address itself identifies the presence of a Mail-11 original
       address preceding it. The decoding is possible, dropping
       'domains' and extracting 'user' and 'node' parts. However complex
       Mail-11 addresses cannot be mapped properly in this syntax, and
       there is no specific rule for adding the 'domains' part of the

   d - In this case again there is a 'reserved word' (dnet)  which make
       possible the identification of the original Mail-11 address;
       'gateway-address' points to the Mail-11/RFC822 gateway and 'node'
       and 'user' information can be easily drawn from the address.
       However complex Mail-11 addresses cannot be embedded easily into
       this syntax.

   Note the only methods a) can be successfully used for DECnet/OSI
   Mail-11 addresses, while the other cases are already too complex to
   encode in a unique way such addresses in RFC822.

6.3 Recommended mappings

   From the examples seen in the previous paragraphs we can derive a
   canonical form for representing the mapping between Mail-11 and

6.3.1 RFC822 mapped in Mail-11

   The mapping of an RFC822 address in Mail-11 is straightforward, using
   the "Mail-11 foreign mail protocol" syntax. The two possible variants
   for Phase IV are:




   The equivalent two possible variants for DECnet/OSI are:




Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 23]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

6.3.2 Mail-11 mapped in RFC822

   RFC822 foresee a canonical form for representing non-RFC822
   addresses: put the foreign address in local part (Left Hand Side,
   LHS) is a form as similar as possible to its original syntax. Thus
   the suggested mapping both for Phase IV and DECnet/OSI is:


   This format assures also the return path via the appropriate gateway.

6.3.3 Mail-11 (foreign mail protocol) mapped in RFC822

   A Mail-11 address containing a foreign mail protocol syntax can also
   contain the percent '%' character as a separator between the foreign
   protocol name and the actual address itself. In some cases the
   address part can also be an unquoted string. Some examples:


   If these addresses are encoded into an RFC822 address using the
   "natural" method described in 6.3.2, they will result in something
   which can be easily mismatched with an address using the percent hack
   in LHS for source routing.

      "myprot%root.owner"@lohost.mydom.edu    (Mail-11 address)

      "LISTSERV%IBMB.BITnet"@bitgate.anu.edu  (% routing address)

   The percent hack is strongly deprecated, and thus should be avoided;
   the second address above shoud be expressed as:


   However, in order to assure maximum functionality and avoid problems,
   it is recommended to encode Mail-11 addresses containing the foreign
   protocol specification in RFC822 syntax using the DD.Mail-11 and
   DD.dnet qualifiers, i.e.


   The DD.dnet defaults as indicated in the similar cases for the Mail-
   11 / X.400 mappings. This encoding method can, of course, also be
   used to map any other Mail-11 address in RFC822, and is the only one
   which enable to specify the network name ('OMNI' in the above
   example) for DECnet Phase IV Mail-11 addresse. The method is fully

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 24]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

   compatible with the results also produced by gateways following the
   MIXER specification for Mail-11 addresses encoded in X.400 and then
   translated into RFC822.

Chapter 7 - Complex mapping - X.400 / Mail-11 / RFC822

7.1. The protocol triangle

   The bilateral mappings described in chapters 5 and 6 must be extended
   in order to cover also the case in which also RFC822 addressing is
   involved, and the following triangular situation occurs:

                                   /  \
                                  /    \
                                 /      \

   The X.400 - RFC822 side is fully covered by MIXER, and the previous
   chapters in this document cover the Mail-11 - X.400 side and the
   Mail-11 - RFC822 one.

7.2. RFC822 mapped in Mail-11

   The 'RFC822-address' is usually included in 'local-part' as


   or the equivalent in DECnet/OSI:


   An example in Phase IV


   and another one in DECnet/OSI


7.3. Mail-11 mapped in RFC822

   There are different styles in mapping a Mail-11 address in RFC822;
   let's have a short summary of what was traditionally done in some

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 25]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

7.3.1 Mail-11 address encoded in "Left Hand Side" (LHS) of RFC822
      address, using "%" syntax or "::" syntax

        route::node::localpart      (Phase IV)

   maps to




   Again, let's consider the DECnet/OSI case:

      net:node-clns::localpart      (DECnet/OSI)

   maps to


   (note that "%" encoding does not exist for this case)

   where 'gw-domains' identify uniquely the Mail-11 / RFC822 gateway.

7.3.2 Mail-11 address maps partly to LHS and partly to 'domain' part of
      RFC822 address


   maps to


   note that this kind of mapping does not exists with DECnet/OSI Mail-
   11 addresses.

7.3.3 Mail-11 address is completely hidden by a mapping table

   In this case the resultant RFC822 address contains no trace at all of
   the original Mail-11 address.

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 26]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

7.4. Multiple conversions

   Let us now examine briefly the possible situations which involve
   multiple conversions, having one protocol as a relay between the
   other two. This summary suggest some possible enhanced solutions to
   avoid heavy and unduly mappings, but the 'step by step' approach,
   considering blindly one conversion as disjointed to the other, as
   described in the previous sections, can always be used.

7.4.1. X.400 --> RFC822 --> Mail-11

   We apply the MIXER rules to the first step, obtaining an RFC822
   address which can be mapped in Mail-11 using the 'f-address' field,
   as described in section 7.2.

   an example:

      C=gb; ADMD=Gold 400; PRMD=AC.UK; O=UCL; OU=cs; G=Jim; S=Clay;

   maps accordingly to MIXER to


   and finally becomes


   and finally becomes


   where 'SMTPGW' is the DECnet Phase IV node name of the machine
   running the RFC822 to Mail-11 gateway. Again, in case the machine
   running the RFC822 to Mail-11 gateway is a DECnet/OSI one (like
   OMNI:.US.VA.CENTRL) we would get


7.4.2. Mail-11 --> RFC822 --> X.400

   Some of the possible mapping described in section 7.3 for Phase IV
   apply to the Mail-11 address, hiding completely its origin. The MIXER
   apply on the last step.

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 27]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

   an example:


   could map into RFC822 as


   and accordingly to MIXER

      C=it; A=garr; P=dom1; O=gw1; OU=RELAY; S=BETTY(p)MYNODE;

   where 'dnet.gw1.it' is the domain of the machine running the Mail-11
   to RFC822 gateway.

7.4.3. X.400 --> Mail-11 --> RFC822

   The X.400 address is stored into Mail-11 'f-address' element as
   described in sections 5.3 and 5.4; then if the Mail-11 to RFC822
   gateway is able to understand the presence of a 'x400-text-address'
   nto the Mail-11 address, then it applies MIXER to it, and encodes
   header. Otherwise it applies the rules described in 7.3.

   an example:

     C=gb; ADMD=Gold 400; PRMD=AC.UK; O=UCL; OU=cs; G=Jim; S=Clay;

   will be encoded like

     X4TDEC::gw%"/C=gb/A=Gold 400/P=AC.UK/O=UCL/OU=cs/G=Jim/S=Clay"

   If the Mail-11 to RFC822 gateway recognise the x400-text-address,
   then the address becomes, accordingly to MIXER


   and the following RFC822 header line is added

     Received: from X4TDEC with DECnet (Mail-11) on xx-xxx-xxxx.

   Otherwise one of the dumb rules could produce

    gw%"/C=gb/A=Gold 400/P=AC.UK/O=UCL/OU=cs/G=Jim/S=Clay"@X4TDEC.doms

   The case with DECnet/OSI Mail-11 is conceptually identical.

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 28]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

7.4.4. RFC822 --> Mail-11 --> X.400

   The RFC822 address is encoded in Mail-11 f-address element as
   described in sect. 7.2; then if the Mail-11 to X.400 gateway is able
   to understand the presence of an 'RFC822-address' into the Mail-11
   address, then it applies MIXER to it, and encodes 'route' and applies
   the rules described in 5.2 and 5.5.

   an example:


   will be encoded like


   If the Mail-11 to X.400 gateway recognise the RFC822-address, then
   the address becomes, accordingly to MIXER

      C=gb; ADMD=Gold 400; PRMD=AC.UK; O=UCL; OU=cs; G=Jim; S=Clay;

   and a 'trace' record is added into the X.400 P1 data, stating that a
   node named SMTPGW was crossed.

   Otherwise dumb rule produces

      C=it; ADMD=garr; DD.Dnet=HEP;

   Again, the case for DECnet/OSI Mail-11 addresses, is conceptually

7.4.5. RFC822 --> X.400 --> Mail-11

   We apply MIXER to the first conversion, obtaining an X.400 address.
   Then the rules described in sections 5.3 and 5.4 are used to store
   the X.400 address as 'x400-text-address' into the Mail-11.

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 29]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

   an example:


   maps accordingly to MIXER to

      C=gb; ADMD=Gold 400; PRMD=AC.UK; O=UCL; OU=cs; G=Jim; S=Clay;

   and finally becomes

      SMTPGW::gw%"/C=gb/A=Gold 400/P=AC.UK/O=UCL/OU=cs/G=Jim/S=Clay"

   where 'SMTPGW' is the DECnet Phase IV node name of the machine
   running the X.400 to Mail-11 gateway. No differences also for
   DECnet/OSI Mail-11 addresses.

7.4.6. Mail-11 --> X.400 --> RFC822

   The Mail-11 address is encoded as specified in sections 5.2 and 5.5;
   then MIXER is used to convert the address in RFC822.

   an example:


   maps into X.400 as

      C=it; ADMD=garr; DD.Dnet=OMNI; DD.Mail-11=RELAY::MYNODE::BETTY;

   and accordingly to MIXER


   where 'gw2.it' is the domain of the machine running the MIXER

7.4. Conclusions

   A standard way of mapping Mail-11 addresses into RFC822 and vice
   versa is feasible. A suggestion is thus made to unify all existing
   and future implementations. It should be noted, however, that it
   could be impossible (in case of DECnet Phase IV) to specify in these
   mappings the name of the decnet community owning the encoded address,
   as it can be always done for X.400; thus the implementation of the
   'intelligent' gateway in this case could result impossible.

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 30]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

Chapter 8 - Notifications and Probes

8.1. Overview

   Mail-11 is a real time protocol, i.e. connection is established
   directly to the destination node. This makes possible some level of
   services like verification of an address, and delivery confirmation.

   However, Mail-11 User Agents ususally do not support notification or
   probe services, whereas it is possible to deliver the result of a
   notification or a probe to Mail-11. In this section we will briefly
   describe the level of service which can be obtained on these services
   when Mail-11 is involved.

8.2. Delivery of Notifications via Mail-11

   As described in the previous chapters, it is possible to transport
   also in Mail-11 with minimal loss of information complex information.
   This also includes Notifications. In fact Notifications in
   RFC822/MIME are encoded as MIME multipart messages: there are thus no
   problems in transporting these messages in Mail-11 as any other MIME
   message. Also X.400 Notifications can be transported and delivered
   via Mail-11: MIXER describes in fact how to convert them into MIME
   multipart messages, taking the problem back to the previous

   Even when Mail-11 is just an intermediate step for a Notification
   message, this consideration just enable support for the service.

8.3. Generation of Notifications and Probes from Mail-11

   Although Mail-11 does not support Notification or Probe, the service
   could also be supported at gateway level. In fact, due to real time
   nature of Mail-11 protocol, the gateway could be reasonably sure that
   delivery until the other end of the Mail-11 path was successful or
   unsuccessful (and try to verify the feasibility of a delivery in case
   a Probe as requested). However, Mail-11 could just be an intermediate
   relay service, vanishing the value of the information.

   Implementation of this kind of service at gateway level is thus
   questionable, and if done, should clearly state the situation where
   it was generated, and the "confidence level" it conveys.

Security Considerations

   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 31]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998


   I wish to thank all those people who read the first draft and
   contributed a lot with their useful suggestions to the revision of
   this document, in particular RARE WG1 and IETF X.400 ops group
   members and S. E. Kille.

   Thanks also to a number of implementors (among which Ned Freed,
   Julian Onions, The Hebrew University of Tel Aviv - Pine VMS support
   team), to the HEPnet Mail Technical Committee and to all my Mail-11
   "end users", in particular Enzo Valente, for their suggestions and
   wishes which helped me really a lot to prepare this revision of
   former RFC1405.


   [1]  CCITT, "CCITT Recommendations X.400-X.430", Message Handling
        Systems: Red Book, October 1984.

   [2]  CCITT, "CCITT Recommendations X.400-X.420", Message Handling
        Systems: Blue Book, November 1988.

   [3]  CCITT/ISO, "CCITT Recommendations X.400/ ISO IS 10021-1,"
        Message Handling: System and Service Overview , December 1992.

   [4]  Crocker D., "Standard of the Format of ARPA Internet Text
        Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, UDel, August 1982.

   [5]  Kille, S., "MIXER (Mime Internet X.400 Enhanced Relay):
        Mapping between X.400 and RFC 822/MIME", RFC 2156, January

   [6]  Alvestrand H., Kille S., Miles R., Rose M., and Thompson S.,
        (MIME-MHS) "Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822 Message Bodies,"
        RFC 1495, Aug 1993.

   [7]  Digital Equipment Corp., "VMS Mail Utility".

   [8]  Joiner Associates Inc., "Jnet User's Manual".

   [9]  PMDF User's Guide.

   [10] Alvestrand, H. "Writing X.400 O/R Names", UNINETT / RFC1685,
        August 1994.

   [11] CCITT, "F.401 CCITT Message Handling Services - Operations and
        Definitions of Service - Naming and Addressing for Public
        Message Handling Services, Annex B (08/92)", August 1992.

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 32]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

Author's Address

   Claudio Allocchio
   Sincrotrone Trieste
   SS 14 Km 163.5 Basovizza
   I 34012 Trieste

   Phone:   +39 40 3758523
   Fax:     +39 40 3758565
   EMail:  Claudio.Allocchio@elettra.Trieste.it
           C=it; A=garr; P=Trieste; O=Elettra; S=Allocchio; G=Claudio;

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 33]

RFC 2162                        MaXIM-11                    January 1998

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

Allocchio                     Experimental                     [Page 34]