Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service Extension for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs)
draft-moore-rfc1891bis-02

1894bis-02 still has some formatting bugs.

                delivery-status-content =  per-message-fields 1*
                                          ( CRLF per-recipient-fields ) 

ABNF doesn't permit whitespace between the repeat and the repeating
element.

            dsn-gateway field = "DSN

(missing dash, missing the stuff that's supposed to be there after the
letters DSN)

          remote-mta field = "Remote

similarly damaged

The Received: header in the Delayed DSN example was changed to have an
invalid syntax (colon added after "id", date removed).

These examples are correct in Appendix A, but that brings up the
question of does everything in Appendix A match the definition elsewhere
in the spec?

An ABNF problem seen in Appendix A:
; final-log-id =
; final-log-id-field defined but not used
(probably supposed to be the same name)



There's also still a misformatted example with lines combined:

      MIME-version: 1.0 content-type: multipart/report; 
        report-type=delivery-status; boundary="84229080704991.122306.SYS30"

Given the amount of misformatting that remains, I'd be surprised if I
found all of the problems.




My problems seem to be resolved in draft-moore-rfc1891bis-02 and
draft-vaudreuil-1893bis-03.

  Bill