PIM
/
offlineimap
mirror of https://github.com/OfflineIMAP/offlineimap.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

doc: add IMAP RFCs 

Signed-off-by: Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s-dev@laposte.net>
This commit is contained in:
Nicolas Sebrecht 2015-03-02 10:49:51 +01:00
parent efc4df1bd7
commit 5ecd557dfb
39 changed files with 37920 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

6
docs/rfcs/README.md Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
All RFCs related to IMAP.
TODO:
- rename the files to know what they are talking about.
- Add a brief introduction here to introduce the most important RFCs.

339
docs/rfcs/rfc1731.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,339 @@
Network Working Group J. Myers
Request for Comments: 1731 Carnegie Mellon
Category: Standards Track December 1994
IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
1. Introduction
The Internet Message Access Protocol, Version 4 [IMAP4] contains the
AUTHENTICATE command, for identifying and authenticating a user to an
IMAP4 server and for optionally negotiating a protection mechanism
for subsequent protocol interactions. This document describes
several authentication mechanisms for use by the IMAP4 AUTHENTICATE
command.
2. Kerberos version 4 authentication mechanism
The authentication type associated with Kerberos version 4 is
"KERBEROS_V4".
The data encoded in the first ready response contains a random 32-bit
number in network byte order. The client should respond with a
Kerberos ticket and an authenticator for the principal
"imap.hostname@realm", where "hostname" is the first component of the
host name of the server with all letters in lower case and where
"realm" is the Kerberos realm of the server. The encrypted checksum
field included within the Kerberos authenticator should contain the
server provided 32-bit number in network byte order.
Upon decrypting and verifying the ticket and authenticator, the
server should verify that the contained checksum field equals the
original server provided random 32-bit number. Should the
verification be successful, the server must add one to the checksum
and construct 8 octets of data, with the first four octets containing
the incremented checksum in network byte order, the fifth octet
containing a bit-mask specifying the protection mechanisms supported
by the server, and the sixth through eighth octets containing, in
Myers [Page 1]
RFC 1731 IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms December 1994
network byte order, the maximum cipher-text buffer size the server is
able to receive. The server must encrypt the 8 octets of data in the
session key and issue that encrypted data in a second ready response.
The client should consider the server authenticated if the first four
octets the un-encrypted data is equal to one plus the checksum it
previously sent.
The client must construct data with the first four octets containing
the original server-issued checksum in network byte order, the fifth
octet containing the bit-mask specifying the selected protection
mechanism, the sixth through eighth octets containing in network byte
order the maximum cipher-text buffer size the client is able to
receive, and the following octets containing a user name string. The
client must then append from one to eight octets so that the length
of the data is a multiple of eight octets. The client must then PCBC
encrypt the data with the session key and respond to the second ready
response with the encrypted data. The server decrypts the data and
verifies the contained checksum. The username field identifies the
user for whom subsequent IMAP operations are to be performed; the
server must verify that the principal identified in the Kerberos
ticket is authorized to connect as that user. After these
verifications, the authentication process is complete.
The protection mechanisms and their corresponding bit-masks are as
follows:
1 No protection mechanism
2 Integrity (krb_mk_safe) protection
4 Privacy (krb_mk_priv) protection
EXAMPLE: The following are two Kerberos version 4 login scenarios
(note that the line breaks in the sample authenticators are for
editorial clarity and are not in real authenticators)
S: * OK IMAP4 Server
C: A001 AUTHENTICATE KERBEROS_V4
S: + AmFYig==
C: BAcAQU5EUkVXLkNNVS5FRFUAOCAsho84kLN3/IJmrMG+25a4DT
+nZImJjnTNHJUtxAA+o0KPKfHEcAFs9a3CL5Oebe/ydHJUwYFd
WwuQ1MWiy6IesKvjL5rL9WjXUb9MwT9bpObYLGOKi1Qh
S: + or//EoAADZI=
C: DiAF5A4gA+oOIALuBkAAmw==
S: A001 OK Kerberos V4 authentication successful
Myers [Page 2]
RFC 1731 IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms December 1994
S: * OK IMAP4 Server
C: A001 AUTHENTICATE KERBEROS_V4
S: + gcfgCA==
C: BAcAQU5EUkVXLkNNVS5FRFUAOCAsho84kLN3/IJmrMG+25a4DT
+nZImJjnTNHJUtxAA+o0KPKfHEcAFs9a3CL5Oebe/ydHJUwYFd
WwuQ1MWiy6IesKvjL5rL9WjXUb9MwT9bpObYLGOKi1Qh
S: A001 NO Kerberos V4 authentication failed
3. GSSAPI authentication mechanism
The authentication type associated with all mechanisms employing the
GSSAPI [RFC1508] is "GSSAPI".
The first ready response issued by the server contains no data. The
client should call GSS_Init_sec_context, passing in 0 for
input_context_handle (initially) and a targ_name equal to output_name
from GSS_Import_Name called with input_name_type of NULL and
input_name_string of "SERVICE:imap@hostname" where "hostname" is the
fully qualified host name of the server with all letters in lower
case. The client must then respond with the resulting output_token.
If GSS_Init_sec_context returns GSS_CONTINUE_NEEDED, then the client
should expect the server to issue a token in a subsequent ready
response. The client must pass the token to another call to
GSS_Init_sec_context.
If GSS_Init_sec_context returns GSS_COMPLETE, then the client should
respond with any resulting output_token. If there is no
output_token, the client should respond with no data. The client
should then expect the server to issue a token in a subsequent ready
response. The client should pass this token to GSS_Unseal and
interpret the first octet of resulting cleartext as a bit-mask
specifying the protection mechanisms supported by the server and the
second through fourth octets as the maximum size output_message to
send to the server. The client should construct data, with the first
octet containing the bit-mask specifying the selected protection
mechanism, the second through fourth octets containing in network
byte order the maximum size output_message the client is able to
receive, and the remaining octets containing a user name string. The
client must pass the data to GSS_Seal with conf_flag set to FALSE,
and respond with the generated output_message. The client can then
consider the server authenticated.
The server must issue a ready response with no data and pass the
resulting client supplied token to GSS_Accept_sec_context as
input_token, setting acceptor_cred_handle to NULL (for "use default
credentials"), and 0 for input_context_handle (initially). If
GSS_Accept_sec_context returns GSS_CONTINUE_NEEDED, the server should
Myers [Page 3]
RFC 1731 IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms December 1994
return the generated output_token to the client in a ready response
and pass the resulting client supplied token to another call to
GSS_Accept_sec_context.
If GSS_Accept_sec_context returns GSS_COMPLETE, then if an
output_token is returned, the server should return it to the client
in a ready response and expect a reply from the client with no data.
Whether or not an output_token was returned, the server then should
then construct 4 octets of data, with the first octet containing a
bit-mask specifying the protection mechanisms supported by the server
and the second through fourth octets containing in network byte order
the maximum size output_token the server is able to receive. The
server must then pass the plaintext to GSS_Seal with conf_flag set to
FALSE and issue the generated output_message to the client in a ready
response. The server must then pass the resulting client supplied
token to GSS_Unseal and interpret the first octet of resulting
cleartext as the bit-mask for the selected protection mechanism, the
second through fourth octets as the maximum size output_message to
send to the client, and the remaining octets as the user name. Upon
verifying the src_name is authorized to authenticate as the user
name, The server should then consider the client authenticated.
The protection mechanisms and their corresponding bit-masks are as
follows:
1 No protection mechanism
2 Integrity protection.
Sender calls GSS_Seal with conf_flag set to FALSE
4 Privacy protection.
Sender calls GSS_Seal with conf_flag set to TRUE
4. S/Key authentication mechanism
The authentication type associated with S/Key [SKEY] is "SKEY".
The first ready response issued by the server contains no data. The
client responds with the user name string.
The data encoded in the second ready response contains the decimal
sequence number followed by a single space and the seed string for
the indicated user. The client responds with the one-time-password,
as either a 64-bit value in network byte order or encoded in the "six
English words" format.
Upon successful verification of the one-time-password, the server
should consider the client authenticated.
Myers [Page 4]
RFC 1731 IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms December 1994
S/Key authentication does not provide for any protection mechanisms.
EXAMPLE: The following are two S/Key login scenarios.
S: * OK IMAP4 Server
C: A001 AUTHENTICATE SKEY
S: +
C: bW9yZ2Fu
S: + OTUgUWE1ODMwOA==
C: Rk9VUiBNQU5OIFNPT04gRklSIFZBUlkgTUFTSA==
S: A001 OK S/Key authentication successful
S: * OK IMAP4 Server
C: A001 AUTHENTICATE SKEY
S: +
C: c21pdGg=
S: + OTUgUWE1ODMwOA==
C: BsAY3g4gBNo=
S: A001 NO S/Key authentication failed
5. References
[IMAP4] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4",
RFC 1730, University of Washington, December 1994.
[RFC1508] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program
Interface", RFC 1508, Geer Zolot Associates, September 1993.
[SKEY] Haller, Neil M. "The S/Key One-Time Password System",
Bellcore, Morristown, New Jersey, October 1993,
thumper.bellcore.com:pub/nmh/docs/ISOC.symp.ps
Myers [Page 5]
RFC 1731 IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms December 1994
6. Security Considerations
Security issues are discussed throughout this memo.
7. Author's Address
John G. Myers
Carnegie-Mellon University
5000 Forbes Ave.
Pittsburgh PA, 15213-3890
EMail: jgm+@cmu.edu
Myers [Page 6]

283
docs/rfcs/rfc1732.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
Network Working Group M. Crispin
Request for Comments: 1732 University of Washington
Category: Informational December 1994
IMAP4 COMPATIBILITY WITH IMAP2 AND IMAP2BIS
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.
Introduction
This is a summary of hints and recommendations to enable an IMAP4
implementation to interoperate with implementations that conform to
earlier specifications. None of these hints and recommendations are
required by the IMAP4 specification; implementors must decide for
themselves whether they want their implementation to fail if it
encounters old software.
IMAP4 has been designed to be upwards compatible with earlier
specifications. For the most part, IMAP4 facilities that were not in
earlier specifications should be invisible to clients unless the
client asks for the facility.
In some cases, older servers may support some of the capabilities
listed as being "new in IMAP4" as experimental extensions to the
IMAP2 protocol described in RFC 1176.
This information may not be complete; it reflects current knowledge
of server and client implementations as well as "folklore" acquired
in the evolution of the protocol.
Crispin [Page 1]
RFC 1732 IMAP4 - Compatibility December 1994
IMAP4 client interoperability with old servers
In general, a client should be able to discover whether an IMAP2
server supports a facility by trial-and-error; if an attempt to use a
facility generates a BAD response, the client can assume that the
server does not support the facility.
A quick way to check whether a server implementation supports the
IMAP4 specification is to try the CAPABILITY command. An OK response
that includes the IMAP4 capability value indicates a server that
supports IMAP4; a BAD response or one without the IMAP4 capability
value indicates an older server.
The following is a list of facilities that are only in IMAP4, and
suggestions for how new clients might interoperate with old servers:
CAPABILITY command
A BAD response to this command indicates that the server
implements IMAP2 (or IMAP2bis) and not IMAP4.
AUTHENTICATE command.
Use the LOGIN command.
LSUB and LIST commands
Try the RFC 1176 FIND command.
* in a sequence
Use the number of messages in the mailbox from the EXISTS
unsolicited response.
SEARCH extensions (character set, additional criteria)
Reformulate the search request using only the searching
options listed in search_old in the IMAP4 grammar. This may
entail doing multiple searches to achieve the desired
results.
BODYSTRUCTURE fetch data item
Try to fetch the non-extensible BODY data item.
body section number 0
Fetch the entire message and extract the header.
RFC822.HEADER.LINES and RFC822.HEADER.LINES.NOT fetch data items
Use RFC822.HEADER and remove the unwanted information.
BODY.PEEK[section], RFC822.PEEK, and RFC822.TEXT.PEEK fetch data
items Use the corresponding non-PEEK versions and manually
clear the \Seen flag as necessary.
Crispin [Page 2]
RFC 1732 IMAP4 - Compatibility December 1994
UID fetch data item and the UID commands
No equivalent capabilitity exists in older servers.
FLAGS.SILENT, +FLAGS.SILENT, and -FLAGS.SILENT store data items
Use the corresponding non-SILENT versions and ignore the
untagged FETCH responses which com eback.
The following IMAP4 facilities were introduced in the experimental
IMAP2bis revisions to RFC-1176, and may be present in a server that
does not support the CAPABILITY command:
CREATE, DELETE, and RENAME commands
To test whether these commands are present, try a CREATE
INBOX command. If the response is NO, these commands are
supported by the server. If the response is BAD, they are
not. Older servers without the CREATE capability may sup-
port implicit creation of a mailbox by a COPY command with a
non-existant name as the destination.
APPEND command
To test whether this command is present, try to append a
zero-length stream to a mailbox name that is known not to
exist (or at least, highly unlikely to exist) on the remote
system.
SUBSCRIBE and UNSUBSCRIBE commands
Try the form of these commands with the optional MAILBOX
keyword.
EXAMINE command
Use the SELECT command instead.
flags and internal date argument to APPEND command
Try the APPEND without any flag list and internal date argu-
ments.
BODY, BODY[section], and FULL fetch data items
Use RFC822.TEXT and ALL instead. Server does not support
MIME.
PARTIAL command
Use the appropriate FETCH command and ignore the unwanted
data.
IMAP4 client implementations must accept all responses and data for-
mats documented in the IMAP4 specification, including those labeled
Crispin [Page 3]
RFC 1732 IMAP4 - Compatibility December 1994
as obsolete. This includes the COPY and STORE unsolicited responses
and the old format of dates and times. In particular, client imple-
mentations must not treat a date/time as a fixed format string; nor
may they assume that the time begins at a particular octet.
IMAP4 client implementations must not depend upon the presence of any
server extensions that are not in the base IMAP4 specification.
The experimental IMAP2bis version specified that the TRYCREATE spe-
cial information token is sent as a separate unsolicited OK response
instead of inside the NO response.
The FIND BBOARDS, FIND ALL.BBOARDS, and BBOARD commands of RFC 1176
are removed from IMAP4. There is no equivalent to the bboard com-
mands, which provided a separate namespace with implicit restrictions
on what may be done in that namespace.
Older server implementations may automatically create the destination
mailbox on COPY if that mailbox does not already exist. This was how
a new mailbox was created in older specifications. If the server
does not support the CREATE command (see above for how to test for
this), it will probably create a mailbox on COPY.
Older server implementations may not preserve flags or internal dates
on COPY. Some server implementations may not permit the preservation
of certain flags on COPY or their setting with APPEND as site policy.
Crispin [Page 4]
RFC 1732 IMAP4 - Compatibility December 1994
IMAP4 server interoperability with old clients
In general, there should be no interoperation problem between a
server conforming to the IMAP4 specification and a well-written
client that conforms to an earlier specification. Known problems are
noted below:
Poor wording in the description of the CHECK command in earlier
specifications implied that a CHECK command is the way to get the
current number of messages in the mailbox. This is incorrect. A
CHECK command does not necessarily result in an EXISTS response.
Clients must remember the most recent EXISTS value sent from the
server, and should not generate unnecessary CHECK commands.
An incompatibility exists with COPY in IMAP4. COPY in IMAP4
servers does not automatically create the destination mailbox if
that mailbox does not already exist. This may cause problems with
old clients that expect automatic mailbox creation in COPY.
The PREAUTH unsolicited response is new in IMAP4. It is highly
unlikely that an old client would ever see this response.
The format of dates and times has changed due to the impending end
of the century. Clients that fail to accept a four-digit year or
a signed four-digit timezone value will not work properly with
IMAP4.
An incompatibility exists with the use of "\" in quoted strings.
This is best avoided by using literals instead of quoted strings
if "\" or <"> is embedded in the string.
Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
Author's Address:
Mark R. Crispin
Networks and Distributed Computing, JE-30
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Phone: (206) 543-5762
EMail: MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU
Crispin [Page 5]

171
docs/rfcs/rfc1733.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
Network Working Group M. Crispin
Request for Comments: 1733 University of Washington
Category: Informational December 1994
DISTRIBUTED ELECTRONIC MAIL MODELS IN IMAP4
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.
Distributed Electronic Mail Models
There are three fundamental models of client/server email: offline,
online, and disconnected use. IMAP4 can be used in any one of these
three models.
The offline model is the most familiar form of client/server email
today, and is used by protocols such as POP-3 (RFC 1225) and UUCP.
In this model, a client application periodically connects to a
server. It downloads all the pending messages to the client machine
and deletes these from the server. Thereafter, all mail processing
is local to the client. This model is store-and-forward; it moves
mail on demand from an intermediate server (maildrop) to a single
destination machine.
The online model is most commonly used with remote filesystem
protocols such as NFS. In this model, a client application
manipulates mailbox data on a server machine. A connection to the
server is maintained throughout the session. No mailbox data are
kept on the client; the client retrieves data from the server as is
needed. IMAP4 introduces a form of the online model that requires
considerably less network bandwidth than a remote filesystem
protocol, and provides the opportunity for using the server for CPU
or I/O intensive functions such as parsing and searching.
The disconnected use model is a hybrid of the offline and online
models, and is used by protocols such as PCMAIL (RFC 1056). In this
model, a client user downloads some set of messages from the server,
manipulates them offline, then at some later time uploads the
changes. The server remains the authoritative repository of the
messages. The problems of synchronization (particularly when
multiple clients are involved) are handled through the means of
unique identifiers for each message.
Crispin [Page 1]
RFC 1733 IMAP4 - Model December 1994
Each of these models have their own strengths and weaknesses:
Feature Offline Online Disc
------- ------- ------ ----
Can use multiple clients NO YES YES
Minimum use of server connect time YES NO YES
Minimum use of server resources YES NO NO
Minimum use of client disk resources NO YES NO
Multiple remote mailboxes NO YES YES
Fast startup NO YES NO
Mail processing when not online YES NO YES
Although IMAP4 has its origins as a protocol designed to accommodate
the online model, it can support the other two models as well. This
makes possible the creation of clients that can be used in any of the
three models. For example, a user may wish to switch between the
online and disconnected models on a regular basis (e.g. owing to
travel).
IMAP4 is designed to transmit message data on demand, and to provide
the facilities necessary for a client to decide what data it needs at
any particular time. There is generally no need to do a wholesale
transfer of an entire mailbox or even of the complete text of a
message. This makes a difference in situations where the mailbox is
large, or when the link to the server is slow.
More specifically, IMAP4 supports server-based RFC 822 and MIME
processing. With this information, it is possible for a client to
determine in advance whether it wishes to retrieve a particular
message or part of a message. For example, a user connected to an
IMAP4 server via a dialup link can determine that a message has a
2000 byte text segment and a 40 megabyte video segment, and elect to
fetch only the text segment.
In IMAP4, the client/server relationship lasts only for the duration
of the TCP connection. There is no registration of clients. Except
for any unique identifiers used in disconnected use operation, the
client initially has no knowledge of mailbox state and learns it from
the IMAP4 server when a mailbox is selected. This initial transfer
is minimal; the client requests additional state data as it needs.
As noted above, the choice for the location of mailbox data depends
upon the model chosen. The location of message state (e.g. whether
or not a message has been read or answered) is also determined by the
model, and is not necessarily the same as the location of the mailbox
data. For example, in the online model message state can be co-
located with mailbox data; it can also be located elsewhere (on the
client or on a third agent) using unique identifiers to achieve
Crispin [Page 2]
RFC 1733 IMAP4 - Model December 1994
common reference across sessions. The latter is particularly useful
with a server that exports public data such as netnews and does not
maintain per-user state.
The IMAP4 protocol provides the generality to implement these
different models. This is done by means of server and (especially)
client configuration, and not by requiring changes to the protocol or
the implementation of the protocol.
Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
Author's Address:
Mark R. Crispin
Networks and Distributed Computing, JE-30
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Phone: (206) 543-5762
EMail: MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU
Crispin [Page 3]

1291
docs/rfcs/rfc1939.txt Normal file
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

171
docs/rfcs/rfc2061.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
Network Working Group M. Crispin
Request for Comments: 2061 University of Washington
Category: Informational December 1996
IMAP4 COMPATIBILITY WITH IMAP2BIS
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.
Introduction
The Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) has been through several
revisions and variants in its 10-year history. Many of these are
either extinct or extremely rare; in particular, several undocumented
variants and the variants described in RFC 1064, RFC 1176, and RFC
1203 fall into this category.
One variant, IMAP2bis, is at the time of this writing very common and
has been widely distributed with the Pine mailer. Unfortunately,
there is no definite document describing IMAP2bis. This document is
intended to be read along with RFC 1176 and the most recent IMAP4
specification (RFC 2060) to assist implementors in creating an IMAP4
implementation to interoperate with implementations that conform to
earlier specifications. Nothing in this document is required by the
IMAP4 specification; implementors must decide for themselves whether
they want their implementation to fail if it encounters old software.
At the time of this writing, IMAP4 has been updated from the version
described in RFC 1730. An implementor who wishes to interoperate
with both RFC 1730 and RFC 2060 should refer to both documents.
This information is not complete; it reflects current knowledge of
server and client implementations as well as "folklore" acquired in
the evolution of the protocol. It is NOT a description of how to
interoperate with all variants of IMAP, but rather with the old
variant that is most likely to be encountered. For detailed
information on interoperating with other old variants, refer to RFC
1732.
IMAP4 client interoperability with IMAP2bis servers
A quick way to check whether a server implementation supports the
IMAP4 specification is to try the CAPABILITY command. An OK response
will indicate which variant(s) of IMAP4 are supported by the server.
Crispin Informational [Page 1]
RFC 2061 IMAP4 Compatibility December 1996
If the client does not find any of its known variant in the response,
it should treat the server as IMAP2bis. A BAD response indicates an
IMAP2bis or older server.
Most IMAP4 facilities are in IMAP2bis. The following exceptions
exist:
CAPABILITY command
The absense of this command indicates IMAP2bis (or older).
AUTHENTICATE command.
Use the LOGIN command.
LSUB, SUBSCRIBE, and UNSUBSCRIBE commands
No direct functional equivalent. IMAP2bis had a concept
called "bboards" which is not in IMAP4. RFC 1176 supported
these with the BBOARD and FIND BBOARDS commands. IMAP2bis
augmented these with the FIND ALL.BBOARDS, SUBSCRIBE BBOARD,
and UNSUBSCRIBE BBOARD commands. It is recommended that
none of these commands be implemented in new software,
including servers that support old clients.
LIST command
Use the command FIND ALL.MAILBOXES, which has a similar syn-
tax and response to the FIND MAILBOXES command described in
RFC 1176. The FIND MAILBOXES command is unlikely to produce
useful information.
* in a sequence
Use the number of messages in the mailbox from the EXISTS
unsolicited response.
SEARCH extensions (character set, additional criteria)
Reformulate the search request using only the RFC 1176 syn-
tax. This may entail doing multiple searches to achieve the
desired results.
BODYSTRUCTURE fetch data item
Use the non-extensible BODY data item.
body sections HEADER, TEXT, MIME, HEADER.FIELDS, HEADER.FIELDS.NOT
Use body section numbers only.
BODY.PEEK[section]
Use BODY[section] and manually clear the \Seen flag as
necessary.
Crispin Informational [Page 2]
RFC 2061 IMAP4 Compatibility December 1996
FLAGS.SILENT, +FLAGS.SILENT, and -FLAGS.SILENT store data items
Use the corresponding non-SILENT versions and ignore the
untagged FETCH responses which come back.
UID fetch data item and the UID commands
No functional equivalent.
CLOSE command
No functional equivalent.
In IMAP2bis, the TRYCREATE special information token is sent as a
separate unsolicited OK response instead of inside the NO response.
IMAP2bis is ambiguous about whether or not flags or internal dates
are preserved on COPY. It is impossible to know what behavior is
supported by the server.
IMAP4 server interoperability with IMAP2bis clients
The only interoperability problem between an IMAP4 server and a
well-written IMAP2bis client is an incompatibility with the use of
"\" in quoted strings. This is best avoided by using literals
instead of quoted strings if "\" or <"> is embedded in the string.
Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
Author's Address
Mark R. Crispin
Networks and Distributed Computing
University of Washington
4545 15th Aveneue NE
Seattle, WA 98105-4527
Phone: (206) 543-5762
EMail: MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU
Crispin Informational [Page 3]

451
docs/rfcs/rfc2062.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,451 @@
Network Working Group M. Crispin
Request for Comments: 2062 University of Washington
Category: Informational December 1996
Internet Message Access Protocol - Obsolete Syntax
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document describes obsolete syntax which may be encountered by
IMAP4 implementations which deal with older versions of the Internet
Mail Access Protocol. IMAP4 implementations MAY implement this
syntax in order to maximize interoperability with older
implementations.
This document repeats information from earlier documents, most
notably RFC 1176 and RFC 1730.
Obsolete Commands and Fetch Data Items
The following commands are OBSOLETE. It is NOT required to support
any of these commands or fetch data items in new server
implementations. These commands are documented here for the benefit
of implementors who may wish to support them for compatibility with
old client implementations.
The section headings of these commands are intended to correspond
with where they would be located in the main document if they were
not obsoleted.
6.3.OBS.1. FIND ALL.MAILBOXES Command
Arguments: mailbox name with possible wildcards
Data: untagged responses: MAILBOX
Result: OK - find completed
NO - find failure: can't list that name
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
Crispin Informational [Page 1]
RFC 2062 IMAP4 Obsolete December 1996
The FIND ALL.MAILBOXES command returns a subset of names from the
complete set of all names available to the user. It returns zero
or more untagged MAILBOX replies. The mailbox argument to FIND
ALL.MAILBOXES is similar to that for LIST with an empty reference,
except that the characters "%" and "?" match a single character.
Example: C: A002 FIND ALL.MAILBOXES *
S: * MAILBOX blurdybloop
S: * MAILBOX INBOX
S: A002 OK FIND ALL.MAILBOXES completed
6.3.OBS.2. FIND MAILBOXES Command
Arguments: mailbox name with possible wildcards
Data: untagged responses: MAILBOX
Result: OK - find completed
NO - find failure: can't list that name
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The FIND MAILBOXES command returns a subset of names from the set
of names that the user has declared as being "active" or
"subscribed". It returns zero or more untagged MAILBOX replies.
The mailbox argument to FIND MAILBOXES is similar to that for LSUB
with an empty reference, except that the characters "%" and "?"
match a single character.
Example: C: A002 FIND MAILBOXES *
S: * MAILBOX blurdybloop
S: * MAILBOX INBOX
S: A002 OK FIND MAILBOXES completed
6.3.OBS.3. SUBSCRIBE MAILBOX Command
Arguments: mailbox name
Data: no specific data for this command
Result: OK - subscribe completed
NO - subscribe failure: can't subscribe to that name
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The SUBSCRIBE MAILBOX command is identical in effect to the
SUBSCRIBE command. A server which implements this command must be
able to distinguish between a SUBSCRIBE MAILBOX command and a
SUBSCRIBE command with a mailbox name argument of "MAILBOX".
Crispin Informational [Page 2]
RFC 2062 IMAP4 Obsolete December 1996
Example: C: A002 SUBSCRIBE MAILBOX #news.comp.mail.mime
S: A002 OK SUBSCRIBE MAILBOX to #news.comp.mail.mime
completed
C: A003 SUBSCRIBE MAILBOX
S: A003 OK SUBSCRIBE to MAILBOX completed
6.3.OBS.4. UNSUBSCRIBE MAILBOX Command
Arguments: mailbox name
Data: no specific data for this command
Result: OK - unsubscribe completed
NO - unsubscribe failure: can't unsubscribe that name
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The UNSUBSCRIBE MAILBOX command is identical in effect to the
UNSUBSCRIBE command. A server which implements this command must
be able to distinguish between a UNSUBSCRIBE MAILBOX command and
an UNSUBSCRIBE command with a mailbox name argument of "MAILBOX".
Example: C: A002 UNSUBSCRIBE MAILBOX #news.comp.mail.mime
S: A002 OK UNSUBSCRIBE MAILBOX from #news.comp.mail.mime
completed
C: A003 UNSUBSCRIBE MAILBOX
S: A003 OK UNSUBSCRIBE from MAILBOX completed
6.4.OBS.1 PARTIAL Command
Arguments: message sequence number
message data item name
position of first octet
number of octets
Data: untagged responses: FETCH
Result: OK - partial completed
NO - partial error: can't fetch that data
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The PARTIAL command is equivalent to the associated FETCH command,
with the added functionality that only the specified number of
octets, beginning at the specified starting octet, are returned.
Only a single message can be fetched at a time. The first octet
of a message, and hence the minimum for the starting octet, is
octet 1.
Crispin Informational [Page 3]
RFC 2062 IMAP4 Obsolete December 1996
The following FETCH items are valid data for PARTIAL: RFC822,
RFC822.HEADER, RFC822.TEXT, BODY[<section>], as well as any .PEEK
forms of these.
Any partial fetch that attempts to read beyond the end of the text
is truncated as appropriate. If the starting octet is beyond the
end of the text, an empty string is returned.
The data are returned with the FETCH response. There is no
indication of the range of the partial data in this response. It
is not possible to stream multiple PARTIAL commands of the same
data item without processing and synchronizing at each step, since
streamed commands may be executed out of order.
There is no requirement that partial fetches follow any sequence.
For example, if a partial fetch of octets 1 through 10000 breaks
in an awkward place for BASE64 decoding, it is permitted to
continue with a partial fetch of 9987 through 19987, etc.
The handling of the \Seen flag is the same as in the associated
FETCH command.
Example: C: A005 PARTIAL 4 RFC822 1 1024
S: * 1 FETCH (RFC822 {1024}
S: Return-Path: <gray@cac.washington.edu>
S: ...
S: ......... FLAGS (\Seen))
S: A005 OK PARTIAL completed
6.4.5.OBS.1 Obsolete FETCH Data Items
The following FETCH data items are obsolete:
BODY[<...>0] A body part number of 0 is the [RFC-822] header of
the message. BODY[0] is functionally equivalent to
BODY[HEADER], differing in the syntax of the
resulting untagged FETCH data (BODY[0] is
returned).
RFC822.HEADER.LINES <header_list>
Functionally equivalent to BODY.PEEK[HEADER.LINES
<header_list>], differing in the syntax of the
resulting untagged FETCH data (RFC822.HEADER is
returned).
Crispin Informational [Page 4]
RFC 2062 IMAP4 Obsolete December 1996
RFC822.HEADER.LINES.NOT <header_list>
Functionally equivalent to
BODY.PEEK[HEADER.LINES.NOT <header_list>],
differing in the syntax of the resulting untagged
FETCH data (RFC822.HEADER is returned).
RFC822.PEEK Functionally equivalent to BODY.PEEK[], except for
the syntax of the resulting untagged FETCH data
(RFC822 is returned).
RFC822.TEXT.PEEK
Functionally equivalent to BODY.PEEK[TEXT], except
for the syntax of the resulting untagged FETCH data
(RFC822.TEXT is returned).
Obsolete Responses
The following responses are OBSOLETE. Except as noted below, these
responses MUST NOT be transmitted by new server implementations.
Client implementations SHOULD accept these responses.
The section headings of these responses are intended to correspond
with where they would be located in the main document if they were
not obsoleted.
7.2.OBS.1. MAILBOX Response
Data: name
The MAILBOX response MUST NOT be transmitted by server
implementations except in response to the obsolete FIND MAILBOXES
and FIND ALL.MAILBOXES commands. Client implementations that do
not use these commands MAY ignore this response. It is documented
here for the benefit of implementors who may wish to support it
for compatibility with old client implementations.
This response occurs as a result of the FIND MAILBOXES and FIND
ALL.MAILBOXES commands. It returns a single name that matches the
FIND specification. There are no attributes or hierarchy
delimiter.
Example: S: * MAILBOX blurdybloop
Crispin Informational [Page 5]
RFC 2062 IMAP4 Obsolete December 1996
7.3.OBS.1. COPY Response
Data: none
The COPY response MUST NOT be transmitted by new server
implementations. Client implementations MUST ignore the COPY
response. It is documented here for the benefit of client
implementors who may encounter this response from old server
implementations.
In some experimental versions of this protocol, this response was
returned in response to a COPY command to indicate on a
per-message basis that the message was copied successfully.
Example: S: * 44 COPY
7.3.OBS.2. STORE Response
Data: message data
The STORE response MUST NOT be transmitted by new server
implementations. Client implementations MUST treat the STORE
response as equivalent to the FETCH response. It is documented
here for the benefit of client implementors who may encounter this
response from old server implementations.
In some experimental versions of this protocol, this response was
returned instead of FETCH in response to a STORE command to report
the new value of the flags.
Example: S: * 69 STORE (FLAGS (\Deleted))
Formal Syntax of Obsolete Commands and Responses
Each obsolete syntax rule that is suffixed with "_old" is added to
the corresponding name in the formal syntax. For example,
command_auth_old adds the FIND command to command_auth.
command_auth_old ::= find
command_select_old
::= partial
date_year_old ::= 2digit
;; (year - 1900)
date_time_old ::= <"> date_day_fixed "-" date_month "-" date_year
SPACE time "-" zone_name <">
Crispin Informational [Page 6]
RFC 2062 IMAP4 Obsolete December 1996
find ::= "FIND" SPACE ["ALL."] "MAILBOXES" SPACE
list_mailbox
fetch_att_old ::= "RFC822.HEADER.LINES" [".NOT"] SPACE header_list /
fetch_text_old
fetch_text_old ::= "BODY" [".PEEK"] section_old /
"RFC822" [".HEADER" / ".TEXT" [".PEEK"]]
msg_data_old ::= "COPY" / ("STORE" SPACE msg_att)
partial ::= "PARTIAL" SPACE nz_number SPACE fetch_text_old SPACE
number SPACE number
section_old ::= "[" (number ["." number]) "]"
subscribe_old ::= "SUBSCRIBE" SPACE "MAILBOX" SPACE mailbox
unsubscribe_old ::= "UNSUBSCRIBE" SPACE "MAILBOX" SPACE mailbox
zone_name ::= "UT" / "GMT" / "Z" / ;; +0000
"AST" / "EDT" / ;; -0400
"EST" / "CDT" / ;; -0500
"CST" / "MDT" / ;; -0600
"MST" / "PDT" / ;; -0700
"PST" / "YDT" / ;; -0800
"YST" / "HDT" / ;; -0900
"HST" / "BDT" / ;; -1000
"BST" / ;; -1100
"A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F" / ;; +1 to +6
"G" / "H" / "I" / "K" / "L" / "M" / ;; +7 to +12
"N" / "O" / "P" / "Q" / "R" / "S" / ;; -1 to -6
"T" / "U" / "V" / "W" / "X" / "Y" ;; -7 to -12
Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
Crispin Informational [Page 7]
RFC 2062 IMAP4 Obsolete December 1996
Author's Address
Mark R. Crispin
Networks and Distributed Computing
University of Washington
4545 15th Aveneue NE
Seattle, WA 98105-4527
Phone: (206) 543-5762
EMail: MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU
Crispin Informational [Page 8]

451
docs/rfcs/rfc2086.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,451 @@
Network Working Group J. Myers
Request for Comments: 2086 Carnegie Mellon
Category: Standards Track January 1997
IMAP4 ACL extension
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
1. Abstract
The ACL extension of the Internet Message Access Protocol [IMAP4]
permits access control lists to be manipulated through the IMAP
protocol.
Table of Contents
1. Abstract............................................... 1
2. Conventions Used in this Document...................... 1
3. Introduction and Overview.............................. 2
4. Commands............................................... 3
4.1. SETACL................................................. 3
4.2. DELETEACL.............................................. 4
4.3. GETACL................................................. 4
4.4. LISTRIGHTS............................................. 4
4.5. MYRIGHTS............................................... 5
5. Responses.............................................. 5
5.1. ACL.................................................... 5
5.2. LISTRIGHTS............................................. 6
5.3. MYRIGHTS............................................... 6
6. Formal Syntax.......................................... 6
7. References............................................. 7
8. Security Considerations................................ 7
9. Author's Address....................................... 8
2. Conventions Used in this Document
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server respectively.
Myers Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2086 ACL extension January 1997
3. Introduction and Overview
The ACL extension is present in any IMAP4 implementation which
returns "ACL" as one of the supported capabilities to the CAPABILITY
command.
An access control list is a set of <identifier,rights> pairs.
Identifier is a US-ASCII string. The identifier anyone is reserved
to refer to the universal identity (all authentications, including
anonymous). All user name strings accepted by the LOGIN or
AUTHENTICATE commands to authenticate to the IMAP server are reserved
as identifiers for the corresponding user. Identifiers starting with
a dash ("-") are reserved for "negative rights", described below.
All other identifier strings are interpreted in an implementation-
defined manner.
Rights is a string listing a (possibly empty) set of alphanumeric
characters, each character listing a set of operations which is being
controlled. Letters are reserved for ``standard'' rights, listed
below. The set of standard rights may only be extended by a
standards-track document. Digits are reserved for implementation or
site defined rights. The currently defined standard rights are:
l - lookup (mailbox is visible to LIST/LSUB commands)
r - read (SELECT the mailbox, perform CHECK, FETCH, PARTIAL,
SEARCH, COPY from mailbox)
s - keep seen/unseen information across sessions (STORE SEEN flag)
w - write (STORE flags other than SEEN and DELETED)
i - insert (perform APPEND, COPY into mailbox)
p - post (send mail to submission address for mailbox,
not enforced by IMAP4 itself)
c - create (CREATE new sub-mailboxes in any implementation-defined
hierarchy)
d - delete (STORE DELETED flag, perform EXPUNGE)
a - administer (perform SETACL)
An implementation may tie rights together or may force rights to
always or never be granted to particular identifiers. For example,
in an implementation that uses unix mode bits, the rights "wisd" are
tied, the "a" right is always granted to the owner of a mailbox and
is never granted to another user. If rights are tied in an
implementation, the implementation must be conservative in granting
rights in response to SETACL commands--unless all rights in a tied
set are specified, none of that set should be included in the ACL
entry for that identifier. A client may discover the set of rights
which may be granted to a given identifier in the ACL for a given
mailbox by using the LISTRIGHTS command.
Myers Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2086 ACL extension January 1997
It is possible for multiple identifiers in an access control list to
apply to a given user (or other authentication identity). For
example, an ACL may include rights to be granted to the identifier
matching the user, one or more implementation-defined identifiers
matching groups which include the user, and/or the identifier
"anyone". How these rights are combined to determine the user's
access is implementation-defined. An implementation may choose, for
example, to use the union of the rights granted to the applicable
identifiers. An implementation may instead choose, for example, to
only use those rights granted to the most specific identifier present
in the ACL. A client may determine the set of rights granted to the
logged-in user for a given mailbox by using the MYRIGHTS command.
When an identifier in an ACL starts with a dash ("-"), that indicates
that associated rights are to be removed from the identifier that is
prefixed by the dash. For example, if the identifier "-fred" is
granted the "w" right, that indicates that the "w" right is to be
removed from users matching the identifier "fred". Implementations
need not support having identifiers which start with a dash in ACLs.
4. Commands
4.1. SETACL
Arguments: mailbox name
authentication identifier
access right modification
Data: no specific data for this command
Result: OK - setacl completed
NO - setacl failure: can't set acl
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The SETACL command changes the access control list on the
specified mailbox so that the specified identifier is granted
permissions as specified in the third argument.
The third argument is a string containing an optional plus ("+")
or minus ("-") prefix, followed by zero or more rights characters.
If the string starts with a plus, the following rights are added
to any existing rights for the identifier. If the string starts
with a minus, the following rights are removed from any existing
rights for the identifier. If the string does not start with a
plus or minus, the rights replace any existing rights for the
identifier.
Myers Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2086 ACL extension January 1997
4.2. DELETEACL
Arguments: mailbox name
authentication identifier
Data: no specific data for this command
Result: OK - deleteacl completed
NO - deleteacl failure: can't delete acl
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The DELETEACL command removes any <identifier,rights> pair for the
specified identifier from the access control list for the specified
mailbox.
4.3. GETACL
Arguments: mailbox name
Data: untagged responses: ACL
Result: OK - getacl completed
NO - getacl failure: can't get acl
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The GETACL command returns the access control list for mailbox in
an untagged ACL reply.
Example: C: A002 GETACL INBOX
S: * ACL INBOX Fred rwipslda
S: A002 OK Getacl complete
4.4. LISTRIGHTS
Arguments: mailbox name
authentication identifier
Data: untagged responses: LISTRIGHTS
Result: OK - listrights completed
NO - listrights failure: can't get rights list
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The LISTRIGHTS command takes a mailbox name and an identifier and
returns information about what rights may be granted to the identifier
in the ACL for the mailbox.
Myers Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2086 ACL extension January 1997
Example: C: a001 LISTRIGHTS ~/Mail/saved smith
S: * LISTRIGHTS ~/Mail/saved smith la r swicd
S: a001 OK Listrights completed
C: a005 LISTRIGHTS archive.imap anyone
S: * LISTRIGHTS archive.imap anyone "" l r s w i p c d a
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
4.5. MYRIGHTS
Arguments: mailbox name
Data: untagged responses: MYRIGHTS
Result: OK - myrights completed
NO - myrights failure: can't get rights
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The MYRIGHTS command returns the set of rights that the user has
to mailbox in an untagged MYRIGHTS reply.
Example: C: A003 MYRIGHTS INBOX
S: * MYRIGHTS INBOX rwipslda
S: A003 OK Myrights complete
5. Responses
5.1. ACL
Data: mailbox name
zero or more identifier rights pairs
The ACL response occurs as a result of a GETACL command. The first
string is the mailbox name for which this ACL applies. This is
followed by zero or more pairs of strings, each pair contains the
identifier for which the entry applies followed by the set of
rights that the identifier has.
Myers Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 2086 ACL extension January 1997
5.2. LISTRIGHTS
Data: mailbox name
identifier
required rights
list of optional rights
The LISTRIGHTS response occurs as a result of a LISTRIGHTS
command. The first two strings are the mailbox name and identifier
for which this rights list applies. Following the identifier is a
string containing the (possibly empty) set of rights the
identifier will always be granted in the mailbox.
Following this are zero or more strings each containing a set of
rights the identifier may be granted in the mailbox. Rights
mentioned in the same string are tied together--either all must be
granted to the identifier in the mailbox or none may be granted.
The same right may not be listed more than once in the LISTRIGHTS
command.
5.3. MYRIGHTS
Data: mailbox name
rights
The MYRIGHTS response occurs as a result of a MYRIGHTS command.
The first string is the mailbox name for which these rights apply.
The second string is the set of rights that the client has.
6. Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur
Form (BNF) notation as specified in [RFC-822] as modified by [IMAP4].
Non-terminals referenced but not defined below are as defined by
[IMAP4].
Except as noted otherwise, all alphabetic characters are case-
insensitive. The use of upper or lower case characters to define
token strings is for editorial clarity only. Implementations MUST
accept these strings in a case-insensitive fashion.
Myers Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 2086 ACL extension January 1997
acl_data ::= "ACL" SPACE mailbox *(SPACE identifier SPACE
rights)
deleteacl ::= "DELETEACL" SPACE mailbox SPACE identifier
getacl ::= "GETACL" SPACE mailbox
identifier ::= astring
listrights ::= "LISTRIGHTS" SPACE mailbox SPACE identifier
listrights_data ::= "LISTRIGHTS" SPACE mailbox SPACE identifier
SPACE rights *(SPACE rights)
mod_rights ::= astring
;; +rights to add, -rights to remove
;; rights to replace
myrights ::= "MYRIGHTS" SPACE mailbox
myrights_data ::= "MYRIGHTS" SPACE mailbox SPACE rights
rights ::= astring
setacl ::= "SETACL" SPACE mailbox SPACE identifier
SPACE mod_rights
7. References
[IMAP4] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4",
RFC 1730, University of Washington, December 1994.
[RFC-822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
Messages", STD 11, RFC 822.
8. Security Considerations
An implementation must make sure the ACL commands themselves do not
give information about mailboxes with appropriately restricted ACL's.
For example, a GETACL command on a mailbox for which the user has
insufficient rights should not admit the mailbox exists, much less
return the mailbox's ACL.
Myers Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 2086 ACL extension January 1997
9. Author's Address
John G. Myers
Carnegie-Mellon University
5000 Forbes Ave.
Pittsburgh PA, 15213-3890
Email: jgm+@cmu.edu
Myers Standards Track [Page 8]

283
docs/rfcs/rfc2087.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
Network Working Group J. Myers
Request for Comments: 2087 Carnegie Mellon
Category: Standards Track January 1997
IMAP4 QUOTA extension
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
1. Abstract
The QUOTA extension of the Internet Message Access Protocol [IMAP4]
permits administrative limits on resource usage (quotas) to be
manipulated through the IMAP protocol.
Table of Contents
1. Abstract........................................... 1
2. Conventions Used in this Document.................. 1
3. Introduction and Overview.......................... 2
4. Commands........................................... 2
4.1. SETQUOTA Command................................... 2
4.2. GETQUOTA Command................................... 2
4.3. GETQUOTAROOT Command............................... 3
5. Responses.......................................... 3
5.1. QUOTA Response..................................... 3
5.2. QUOTAROOT Response................................. 4
6. Formal syntax...................................... 4
7. References......................................... 5
8. Security Considerations............................ 5
9. Author's Address................................... 5
2. Conventions Used in this Document
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server respectively.
Myers Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2087 QUOTA January 1997
3. Introduction and Overview
The QUOTA extension is present in any IMAP4 implementation which
returns "QUOTA" as one of the supported capabilities to the
CAPABILITY command.
An IMAP4 server which supports the QUOTA capability may support
limits on any number of resources. Each resource has an atom name
and an implementation-defined interpretation which evaluates to an
integer. Examples of such resources are:
Name Interpretation
STORAGE Sum of messages' RFC822.SIZE, in units of 1024 octets
MESSAGE Number of messages
Each mailbox has zero or more implementation-defined named "quota
roots". Each quota root has zero or more resource limits. All
mailboxes that share the same named quota root share the resource
limits of the quota root.
Quota root names do not necessarily have to match the names of
existing mailboxes.
4. Commands
4.1. SETQUOTA Command
Arguments: quota root
list of resource limits
Data: untagged responses: QUOTA
Result: OK - setquota completed
NO - setquota error: can't set that data
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The SETQUOTA command takes the name of a mailbox quota root and a
list of resource limits. The resource limits for the named quota root
are changed to be the specified limits. Any previous resource limits
for the named quota root are discarded.
If the named quota root did not previously exist, an implementation
may optionally create it and change the quota roots for any number of
existing mailboxes in an implementation-defined manner.
Myers Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2087 QUOTA January 1997
Example: C: A001 SETQUOTA "" (STORAGE 512)
S: * QUOTA "" (STORAGE 10 512)
S: A001 OK Setquota completed
4.2. GETQUOTA Command
Arguments: quota root
Data: untagged responses: QUOTA
Result: OK - getquota completed
NO - getquota error: no such quota root, permission
denied
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The GETQUOTA command takes the name of a quota root and returns the
quota root's resource usage and limits in an untagged QUOTA response.
Example: C: A003 GETQUOTA ""
S: * QUOTA "" (STORAGE 10 512)
S: A003 OK Getquota completed
4.3. GETQUOTAROOT Command
Arguments: mailbox name
Data: untagged responses: QUOTAROOT, QUOTA
Result: OK - getquota completed
NO - getquota error: no such mailbox, permission denied
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The GETQUOTAROOT command takes the name of a mailbox and returns the
list of quota roots for the mailbox in an untagged QUOTAROOT
response. For each listed quota root, it also returns the quota
root's resource usage and limits in an untagged QUOTA response.
Example: C: A003 GETQUOTAROOT INBOX
S: * QUOTAROOT INBOX ""
S: * QUOTA "" (STORAGE 10 512)
S: A003 OK Getquota completed
Myers Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2087 QUOTA January 1997
5. Responses
5.1. QUOTA Response
Data: quota root name
list of resource names, usages, and limits
This response occurs as a result of a GETQUOTA or GETQUOTAROOT
command. The first string is the name of the quota root for which
this quota applies.
The name is followed by a S-expression format list of the resource
usage and limits of the quota root. The list contains zero or
more triplets. Each triplet conatins a resource name, the current
usage of the resource, and the resource limit.
Resources not named in the list are not limited in the quota root.
Thus, an empty list means there are no administrative resource
limits in the quota root.
Example: S: * QUOTA "" (STORAGE 10 512)
5.2. QUOTAROOT Response
Data: mailbox name
zero or more quota root names
This response occurs as a result of a GETQUOTAROOT command. The
first string is the mailbox and the remaining strings are the
names of the quota roots for the mailbox.
Example: S: * QUOTAROOT INBOX ""
S: * QUOTAROOT comp.mail.mime
6. Formal syntax
The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur
Form (BNF) notation as specified in RFC 822 with one exception; the
delimiter used with the "#" construct is a single space (SP) and not
one or more commas.
Except as noted otherwise, all alphabetic characters are case-
insensitive. The use of upper or lower case characters to define
token strings is for editorial clarity only. Implementations MUST
accept these strings in a case-insensitive fashion.
Myers Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2087 QUOTA January 1997
getquota ::= "GETQUOTA" SP astring
getquotaroot ::= "GETQUOTAROOT" SP astring
quota_list ::= "(" #quota_resource ")"
quota_resource ::= atom SP number SP number
quota_response ::= "QUOTA" SP astring SP quota_list
quotaroot_response
::= "QUOTAROOT" SP astring *(SP astring)
setquota ::= "SETQUOTA" SP astring SP setquota_list
setquota_list ::= "(" 0#setquota_resource ")"
setquota_resource ::= atom SP number
7. References
[IMAP4] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4",
RFC 1730, University of Washington, December 1994.
[RFC-822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet
Text Messages", STD 11, RFC 822.
8. Security Considerations
Implementors should be careful to make sure the implementation of
these commands does not violate the site's security policy. The
resource usage of other users is likely to be considered confidential
information and should not be divulged to unauthorized persons.
9. Author's Address
John G. Myers
Carnegie-Mellon University
5000 Forbes Ave.
Pittsburgh PA, 15213-3890
EMail: jgm+@cmu.edu
Myers Standards Track [Page 5]

115
docs/rfcs/rfc2088.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
Network Working Group J. Myers
Request for Comments: 2088 Carnegie Mellon
Cateogry: Standards Track January 1997
IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
1. Abstract
The Internet Message Access Protocol [IMAP4] contains the "literal"
syntactic construct for communicating strings. When sending a
literal from client to server, IMAP4 requires the client to wait for
the server to send a command continuation request between sending the
octet count and the string data. This document specifies an
alternate form of literal which does not require this network round
trip.
2. Conventions Used in this Document
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server respectively.
3. Specification
The non-synchronizing literal is added an alternate form of literal,
and may appear in communication from client to server instead of the
IMAP4 form of literal. The IMAP4 form of literal, used in
communication from client to server, is referred to as a
synchronizing literal.
Non-synchronizing literals may be used with any IMAP4 server
implementation which returns "LITERAL+" as one of the supported
capabilities to the CAPABILITY command. If the server does not
advertise the LITERAL+ capability, the client must use synchronizing
literals instead.
The non-synchronizing literal is distinguished from the original
synchronizing literal by having a plus ('+') between the octet count
and the closing brace ('}'). The server does not generate a command
continuation request in response to a non-synchronizing literal, and
Myers Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2088 LITERAL January 1997
clients are not required to wait before sending the octets of a non-
synchronizing literal.
The protocol receiver of an IMAP4 server must check the end of every
received line for an open brace ('{') followed by an octet count, a
plus ('+'), and a close brace ('}') immediately preceeding the CRLF.
If it finds this sequence, it is the octet count of a non-
synchronizing literal and the server MUST treat the specified number
of following octets and the following line as part of the same
command. A server MAY still process commands and reject errors on a
line-by-line basis, as long as it checks for non-synchronizing
literals at the end of each line.
Example: C: A001 LOGIN {11+}
C: FRED FOOBAR {7+}
C: fat man
S: A001 OK LOGIN completed
4. Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur
Form (BNF) notation as specified in [RFC-822] as modified by [IMAP4].
Non-terminals referenced but not defined below are as defined by
[IMAP4].
literal ::= "{" number ["+"] "}" CRLF *CHAR8
;; Number represents the number of CHAR8 octets
6. References
[IMAP4] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4",
draft-crispin-imap-base-XX.txt, University of Washington, April 1996.
[RFC-822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
Messages", STD 11, RFC 822.
7. Security Considerations
There are no known security issues with this extension.
8. Author's Address
John G. Myers
Carnegie-Mellon University
5000 Forbes Ave.
Pittsburgh PA, 15213-3890
Email: jgm+@cmu.edu
Myers Standards Track [Page 2]

283
docs/rfcs/rfc2095.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
Network Working Group J. Klensin
Request for Comments: 2095 R. Catoe
Category: Standards Track P. Krumviede
MCI
January 1997
IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension for Simple Challenge/Response
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
While IMAP4 supports a number of strong authentication mechanisms as
described in RFC 1731, it lacks any mechanism that neither passes
cleartext, reusable passwords across the network nor requires either
a significant security infrastructure or that the mail server update
a mail-system-wide user authentication file on each mail access.
This specification provides a simple challenge-response
authentication protocol that is suitable for use with IMAP4. Since
it utilizes Keyed-MD5 digests and does not require that the secret be
stored in the clear on the server, it may also constitute an
improvement on APOP for POP3 use as specified in RFC 1734.
1. Introduction
Existing Proposed Standards specify an AUTHENTICATE mechanism for the
IMAP4 protocol [IMAP, IMAP-AUTH] and a parallel AUTH mechanism for
the POP3 protocol [POP3-AUTH]. The AUTHENTICATE mechanism is
intended to be extensible; the four methods specified in [IMAP-AUTH]
are all fairly powerful and require some security infrastructure to
support. The base POP3 specification [POP3] also contains a
lightweight challenge-response mechanism called APOP. APOP is
associated with most of the risks associated with such protocols: in
particular, it requires that both the client and server machines have
access to the shared secret in cleartext form. CRAM offers a method
for avoiding such cleartext storage while retaining the algorithmic
simplicity of APOP in using only MD5, though in a "keyed" method.
Klensin, Catoe & Krumviede Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2095 IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension January 1997
At present, IMAP [IMAP] lacks any facility corresponding to APOP.
The only alternative to the strong mechanisms identified in [IMAP-
AUTH] is a presumably cleartext username and password, supported
through the LOGIN command in [IMAP]. This document describes a
simple challenge-response mechanism, similar to APOP and PPP CHAP
[PPP], that can be used with IMAP (and, in principle, with POP3).
This mechanism also has the advantage over some possible alternatives
of not requiring that the server maintain information about email
"logins" on a per-login basis. While mechanisms that do require such
per-login history records may offer enhanced security, protocols such
as IMAP, which may have several connections between a given client
and server open more or less simultaneous, may make their
implementation particularly challenging.
2. Challenge-Response Authentication Mechanism (CRAM)
The authentication type associated with CRAM is "CRAM-MD5".
The data encoded in the first ready response contains an
presumptively arbitrary string of random digits, a timestamp, and the
fully-qualified primary host name of the server. The syntax of the
unencoded form must correspond to that of an RFC 822 'msg-id'
[RFC822] as described in [POP3].
The client makes note of the data and then responds with a string
consisting of the user name, a space, and a 'digest'. The latter is
computed by applying the keyed MD5 algorithm from [KEYED-MD5] where
the key is a shared secret and the digested text is the timestamp
(including angle-brackets).
This shared secret is a string known only to the client and server.
The `digest' parameter itself is a 16-octet value which is sent in
hexadecimal format, using lower-case ASCII characters.
When the server receives this client response, it verifies the digest
provided. If the digest is correct, the server should consider the
client authenticated and respond appropriately.
Keyed MD5 is chosen for this application because of the greater
security imparted to authentication of short messages. In addition,
the use of the techniques described in [KEYED-MD5] for precomputation
of intermediate results make it possible to avoid explicit cleartext
storage of the shared secret on the server system by instead storing
the intermediate results which are known as "contexts".
Klensin, Catoe & Krumviede Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2095 IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension January 1997
CRAM does not support a protection mechanism.
Example:
The examples in this document show the use of the CRAM mechanism with
the IMAP4 AUTHENTICATE command [IMAP-AUTH]. The base64 encoding of
the challenges and responses is part of the IMAP4 AUTHENTICATE
command, not part of the CRAM specification itself.
S: * OK IMAP4 Server
C: A0001 AUTHENTICATE CRAM-MD5
S: + PDE4OTYuNjk3MTcwOTUyQHBvc3RvZmZpY2UucmVzdG9uLm1jaS5uZXQ+
C: dGltIGI5MTNhNjAyYzdlZGE3YTQ5NWI0ZTZlNzMzNGQzODkw
S: A0001 OK CRAM authentication successful
In this example, the shared secret is the string
'tanstaaftanstaaf'. Hence, the Keyed MD5 digest is produced by
calculating
MD5((tanstaaftanstaaf XOR opad),
MD5((tanstaaftanstaaf XOR ipad),
<1896.697170952@postoffice.reston.mci.net>))
where ipad and opad are as defined in the keyed-MD5 Work in
Progress [KEYED-MD5] and the string shown in the challenge is the
base64 encoding of <1896.697170952@postoffice.reston.mci.net>. The
shared secret is null-padded to a length of 64 bytes. If the
shared secret is longer than 64 bytes, the MD5 digest of the
shared secret is used as a 16 byte input to the keyed MD5
calculation.
This produces a digest value (in hexadecimal) of
b913a602c7eda7a495b4e6e7334d3890
The user name is then prepended to it, forming
tim b913a602c7eda7a495b4e6e7334d3890
Which is then base64 encoded to meet the requirements of the IMAP4
AUTHENTICATE command (or the similar POP3 AUTH command), yielding
dGltIGI5MTNhNjAyYzdlZGE3YTQ5NWI0ZTZlNzMzNGQzODkw
Klensin, Catoe & Krumviede Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2095 IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension January 1997
3. References
[CHAP] Lloyd, B., and W. Simpson, "PPP Authentication Protocols",
RFC 1334, October 1992.
[IMAP] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
4rev1", RFC 2060, University of Washington, December 1996.
[IMAP-AUTH] Myers, J., "IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms",
RFC 1731, Carnegie Mellon, December 1994.
[KEYED-MD5] Krawczyk, H., "HMAC-MD5: Keyed-MD5 for Message
Authentication", Work in Progess.
[MD5] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message Digest Algorithm",
RFC 1321, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, April 1992.
[POP3] Myers, J., and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3",
STD 53, RFC 1939, Carnegie Mellon, May 1996.
[POP3-AUTH] Myers, J., "POP3 AUTHentication command", RFC 1734,
Carnegie Mellon, December, 1994.
4. Security Considerations
It is conjectured that use of the CRAM authentication mechanism
provides origin identification and replay protection for a session.
Accordingly, a server that implements both a cleartext password
command and this authentication type should not allow both methods of
access for a given user.
While the saving, on the server, of "contexts" (see section 2) is
marginally better than saving the shared secrets in cleartext as is
required by CHAP [CHAP] and APOP [POP3], it is not sufficient to
protect the secrets if the server itself is compromised.
Consequently, servers that store the secrets or contexts must both be
protected to a level appropriate to the potential information value
in user mailboxes and identities.
As the length of the shared secret increases, so does the difficulty
of deriving it.
While there are now suggestions in the literature that the use of MD5
and keyed MD5 in authentication procedures probably has a limited
effective lifetime, the technique is now widely deployed and widely
understood. It is believed that this general understanding may
assist with the rapid replacement, by CRAM-MD5, of the current uses
of permanent cleartext passwords in IMAP. This document has been
Klensin, Catoe & Krumviede Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2095 IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension January 1997
deliberately written to permit easy upgrading to use SHA (or whatever
alternatives emerge) when they are considered to be widely available
and adequately safe.
Even with the use of CRAM, users are still vulnerable to active
attacks. An example of an increasingly common active attack is 'TCP
Session Hijacking' as described in CERT Advisory CA-95:01 [CERT95].
See section 1 above for additional discussion.
5. Acknowledgements
This memo borrows ideas and some text liberally from [POP3] and
[RFC-1731] and thanks are due the authors of those documents. Ran
Atkinson made a number of valuable technical and editorial
contributions to the document.
6. Authors' Addresses
John C. Klensin
MCI Telecommunications
800 Boylston St, 7th floor
Boston, MA 02199
USA
EMail: klensin@mci.net
Phone: +1 617 960 1011
Randy Catoe
MCI Telecommunications
2100 Reston Parkway
Reston, VA 22091
USA
EMail: randy@mci.net
Phone: +1 703 715 7366
Paul Krumviede
MCI Telecommunications
2100 Reston Parkway
Reston, VA 22091
USA
EMail: paul@mci.net
Phone: +1 703 715 7251
Klensin, Catoe & Krumviede Standards Track [Page 5]

227
docs/rfcs/rfc2177.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
Network Working Group B. Leiba
Request for Comments: 2177 IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Category: Standards Track June 1997
IMAP4 IDLE command
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
1. Abstract
The Internet Message Access Protocol [IMAP4] requires a client to
poll the server for changes to the selected mailbox (new mail,
deletions). It's often more desirable to have the server transmit
updates to the client in real time. This allows a user to see new
mail immediately. It also helps some real-time applications based on
IMAP, which might otherwise need to poll extremely often (such as
every few seconds). (While the spec actually does allow a server to
push EXISTS responses aysynchronously, a client can't expect this
behaviour and must poll.)
This document specifies the syntax of an IDLE command, which will
allow a client to tell the server that it's ready to accept such
real-time updates.
2. Conventions Used in this Document
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server respectively.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY"
in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2060
[IMAP4].
3. Specification
IDLE Command
Arguments: none
Responses: continuation data will be requested; the client sends
the continuation data "DONE" to end the command
Leiba Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2177 IMAP4 IDLE command June 1997
Result: OK - IDLE completed after client sent "DONE"
NO - failure: the server will not allow the IDLE
command at this time
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The IDLE command may be used with any IMAP4 server implementation
that returns "IDLE" as one of the supported capabilities to the
CAPABILITY command. If the server does not advertise the IDLE
capability, the client MUST NOT use the IDLE command and must poll
for mailbox updates. In particular, the client MUST continue to be
able to accept unsolicited untagged responses to ANY command, as
specified in the base IMAP specification.
The IDLE command is sent from the client to the server when the
client is ready to accept unsolicited mailbox update messages. The
server requests a response to the IDLE command using the continuation
("+") response. The IDLE command remains active until the client
responds to the continuation, and as long as an IDLE command is
active, the server is now free to send untagged EXISTS, EXPUNGE, and
other messages at any time.
The IDLE command is terminated by the receipt of a "DONE"
continuation from the client; such response satisfies the server's
continuation request. At that point, the server MAY send any
remaining queued untagged responses and then MUST immediately send
the tagged response to the IDLE command and prepare to process other
commands. As in the base specification, the processing of any new
command may cause the sending of unsolicited untagged responses,
subject to the ambiguity limitations. The client MUST NOT send a
command while the server is waiting for the DONE, since the server
will not be able to distinguish a command from a continuation.
The server MAY consider a client inactive if it has an IDLE command
running, and if such a server has an inactivity timeout it MAY log
the client off implicitly at the end of its timeout period. Because
of that, clients using IDLE are advised to terminate the IDLE and
re-issue it at least every 29 minutes to avoid being logged off.
This still allows a client to receive immediate mailbox updates even
though it need only "poll" at half hour intervals.
Leiba Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2177 IMAP4 IDLE command June 1997
Example: C: A001 SELECT INBOX
S: * FLAGS (Deleted Seen)
S: * 3 EXISTS
S: * 0 RECENT
S: * OK [UIDVALIDITY 1]
S: A001 OK SELECT completed
C: A002 IDLE
S: + idling
...time passes; new mail arrives...
S: * 4 EXISTS
C: DONE
S: A002 OK IDLE terminated
...another client expunges message 2 now...
C: A003 FETCH 4 ALL
S: * 4 FETCH (...)
S: A003 OK FETCH completed
C: A004 IDLE
S: * 2 EXPUNGE
S: * 3 EXISTS
S: + idling
...time passes; another client expunges message 3...
S: * 3 EXPUNGE
S: * 2 EXISTS
...time passes; new mail arrives...
S: * 3 EXISTS
C: DONE
S: A004 OK IDLE terminated
C: A005 FETCH 3 ALL
S: * 3 FETCH (...)
S: A005 OK FETCH completed
C: A006 IDLE
4. Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur
Form (BNF) notation as specified in [RFC-822] as modified by [IMAP4].
Non-terminals referenced but not defined below are as defined by
[IMAP4].
command_auth ::= append / create / delete / examine / list / lsub /
rename / select / status / subscribe / unsubscribe
/ idle
;; Valid only in Authenticated or Selected state
idle ::= "IDLE" CRLF "DONE"
Leiba Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2177 IMAP4 IDLE command June 1997
5. References
[IMAP4] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
4rev1", RFC 2060, December 1996.
6. Security Considerations
There are no known security issues with this extension.
7. Author's Address
Barry Leiba
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
30 Saw Mill River Road
Hawthorne, NY 10532
Email: leiba@watson.ibm.com
Leiba Standards Track [Page 4]

787
docs/rfcs/rfc2180.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,787 @@
Network Working Group M. Gahrns
Request for Comments: 2180 Microsoft
Category: Informational July 1997
IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.
1. Abstract
IMAP4[RFC-2060] is rich client/server protocol that allows a client
to access and manipulate electronic mail messages on a server.
Within the protocol framework, it is possible to have differing
results for particular client/server interactions. If a protocol does
not allow for this, it is often unduly restrictive.
For example, when multiple clients are accessing a mailbox and one
attempts to delete the mailbox, an IMAP4 server may choose to
implement a solution based upon server architectural constraints or
individual preference.
With this flexibility comes greater client responsibility. It is not
sufficient for a client to be written based upon the behavior of a
particular IMAP server. Rather the client must be based upon the
behavior allowed by the protocol.
By documenting common IMAP4 server practice for the case of
simultaneous client access to a mailbox, we hope to ensure the widest
amount of inter-operation between IMAP4 clients and servers.
The behavior described in this document reflects the practice of some
existing servers or behavior that the consensus of the IMAP mailing
list has deemed to be reasonable. The behavior described within this
document is believed to be [RFC-2060] compliant. However, this
document is not meant to define IMAP4 compliance, nor is it an
exhaustive list of valid IMAP4 behavior. [RFC-2060] must always be
consulted to determine IMAP4 compliance, especially for server
behavior not described within this document.
Gahrns Informational [Page 1]
RFC 2180 IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice July 1997
2. Conventions used in this document
In examples,"C1:", "C2:" and "C3:" indicate lines sent by 3 different
clients (client #1, client #2 and client #3) that are connected to a
server. "S1:", "S2:" and "S3:" indicated lines sent by the server to
client #1, client #2 and client #3 respectively.
A shared mailbox, is a mailbox that can be used by multiple users.
A multi-accessed mailbox, is a mailbox that has multiple clients
simultaneously accessing it.
A client is said to have accessed a mailbox after a successful SELECT
or EXAMINE command.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC-2119].
3. Deletion/Renaming of a multi-accessed mailbox
If an external agent or multiple clients are accessing a mailbox,
care must be taken when handling the deletion or renaming of the
mailbox. Following are some strategies an IMAP server may choose to
use when dealing with this situation.
3.1. The server MAY fail the DELETE/RENAME command of a multi-accessed
mailbox
In some cases, this behavior may not be practical. For example, if a
large number of clients are accessing a shared mailbox, the window in
which no clients have the mailbox accessed may be small or non-
existent, effectively rendering the mailbox undeletable or
unrenamable.
Example:
<Client #1 and Client #2 have mailbox FOO accessed. Client #1 tries
to DELETE the mailbox and is refused>
C1: A001 DELETE FOO
S1: A001 NO Mailbox FOO is in use by another user.
Gahrns Informational [Page 2]
RFC 2180 IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice July 1997
3.2. The server MAY allow the DELETE command of a multi-accessed
mailbox, but keep the information in the mailbox available for
those clients that currently have access to the mailbox.
When all clients have finished accessing the mailbox, it is
permanently removed. For clients that do not already have access to
the mailbox, the 'ghosted' mailbox would not be available. For
example, it would not be returned to these clients in a subsequent
LIST or LSUB command and would not be a valid mailbox argument to any
other IMAP command until the reference count of clients accessing the
mailbox reached 0.
In some cases, this behavior may not be desirable. For example if
someone created a mailbox with offensive or sensitive information,
one might prefer to have the mailbox deleted and all access to the
information contained within removed immediately, rather than
continuing to allow access until the client closes the mailbox.
Furthermore, this behavior, may prevent 'recycling' of the same
mailbox name until all clients have finished accessing the original
mailbox.
Example:
<Client #1 and Client #2 have mailbox FOO selected. Client #1 DELETEs
mailbox FOO>
C1: A001 DELETE FOO
S1: A001 OK Mailbox FOO is deleted.
<Client #2 is still able to operate on the deleted mailbox>
C2: B001 STORE 1 +FLAGS (\Seen)
S2: * 1 FETCH FLAGS (\Seen)
S2: B001 OK STORE completed
<Client #3 which did not have access to the mailbox prior to the
deletion by client #1 does not have access to the mailbox>
C3: C001 STATUS FOO (MESSAGES)
S3: C001 NO Mailbox does not exist
<Nor is client #3 able to create a mailbox with the name FOO, while
the reference count is non zero>
C3: C002 CREATE FOO
S3: C002 NO Mailbox FOO is still in use. Try again later.
Gahrns Informational [Page 3]
RFC 2180 IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice July 1997
<Client #2 closes its access to the mailbox, no other clients have
access to the mailbox FOO and reference count becomes 0>
C2: B002 CLOSE
S2: B002 OK CLOSE Completed
<Now that the reference count on FOO has reached 0, the mailbox name
can be recycled>
C3: C003 CREATE FOO
S3: C003 OK CREATE Completed
3.3. The server MAY allow the DELETE/RENAME of a multi-accessed
mailbox, but disconnect all other clients who have the mailbox
accessed by sending a untagged BYE response.
A server may often choose to disconnect clients in the DELETE case,
but may choose to implement a "friendlier" method for the RENAME
case.
Example:
<Client #1 and Client #2 have mailbox FOO accessed. Client #1 DELETEs
the mailbox FOO>
C1: A002 DELETE FOO
S1: A002 OK DELETE completed.
<Server disconnects all other users of the mailbox>
S2: * BYE Mailbox FOO has been deleted.
3.4. The server MAY allow the RENAME of a multi-accessed mailbox by
simply changing the name attribute on the mailbox.
Other clients that have access to the mailbox can continue issuing
commands such as FETCH that do not reference the mailbox name.
Clients would discover the renaming the next time they referred to
the old mailbox name. Some servers MAY choose to include the
[NEWNAME] response code in their tagged NO response to a command that
contained the old mailbox name, as a hint to the client that the
operation can succeed if the command is issued with the new mailbox
name.
Gahrns Informational [Page 4]
RFC 2180 IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice July 1997
Example:
<Client #1 and Client #2 have mailbox FOO accessed. Client #1 RENAMEs
the mailbox.>
C1: A001 RENAME FOO BAR
S1: A001 OK RENAME completed.
<Client #2 is still able to do operations that do not reference the
mailbox name>
C2: B001 FETCH 2:4 (FLAGS)
S2: * 2 FETCH . . .
S2: * 3 FETCH . . .
S2: * 4 FETCH . . .
S2: B001 OK FETCH completed
<Client #2 is not able to do operations that reference the mailbox
name>
C2: B002 APPEND FOO {300} C2: Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994
21:52:25 0800 (PST) C2: . . . S2: B002 NO [NEWNAME FOO
BAR] Mailbox has been renamed
4. Expunging of messages on a multi-accessed mailbox
If an external agent or multiple clients are accessing a mailbox,
care must be taken when handling the EXPUNGE of messages. Other
clients accessing the mailbox may be in the midst of issuing a
command that depends upon message sequence numbers. Because an
EXPUNGE response can not be sent while responding to a FETCH, STORE
or SEARCH command, it is not possible to immediately notify the
client of the EXPUNGE. This can result in ambiguity if the client
issues a FETCH, STORE or SEARCH operation on a message that has been
EXPUNGED.
4.1. Fetching of expunged messages
Following are some strategies an IMAP server may choose to use when
dealing with a FETCH command on expunged messages.
Gahrns Informational [Page 5]
RFC 2180 IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice July 1997
Consider the following scenario:
- Client #1 and Client #2 have mailbox FOO selected.
- There are 7 messages in the mailbox.
- Messages 4:7 are marked for deletion.
- Client #1 issues an EXPUNGE, to expunge messages 4:7
4.1.1. The server MAY allow the EXPUNGE of a multi-accessed mailbox but
keep the messages available to satisfy subsequent FETCH commands
until it is able to send an EXPUNGE response to each client.
In some cases, the behavior of keeping "ghosted" messages may not be
desirable. For example if a message contained offensive or sensitive
information, one might prefer to instantaneously remove all access to
the information, regardless of whether another client is in the midst
of accessing it.
Example: (Building upon the scenario outlined in 4.1.)
<Client #2 is still able to access the expunged messages because the
server has kept a 'ghosted' copy of the messages until it is able to
notify client #2 of the EXPUNGE>
C2: B001 FETCH 4:7 RFC822
S2: * 4 FETCH RFC822 . . . (RFC822 info returned)
S2: * 5 FETCH RFC822 . . . (RFC822 info returned)
S2: * 6 FETCH RFC822 . . . (RFC822 info returned)
S2: * 7 FETCH RFC822 . . . (RFC822 info returned)
S2: B001 OK FETCH Completed
<Client #2 issues a command where it can get notified of the EXPUNGE>
C2: B002 NOOP
S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
S2: * 3 EXISTS
S2: B002 OK NOOP Complete
<Client #2 no longer has access to the expunged messages>
C2: B003 FETCH 4:7 RFC822
S2: B003 NO Messages 4:7 are no longer available.
Gahrns Informational [Page 6]
RFC 2180 IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice July 1997
4.1.2 The server MAY allow the EXPUNGE of a multi-accessed mailbox,
and on subsequent FETCH commands return FETCH responses only for
non-expunged messages and a tagged NO.
After receiving a tagged NO FETCH response, the client SHOULD issue a
NOOP command so that it will be informed of any pending EXPUNGE
responses. The client may then either reissue the failed FETCH
command, or by examining the EXPUNGE response from the NOOP and the
FETCH response from the FETCH, determine that the FETCH failed
because of pending expunges.
Example: (Building upon the scenario outlined in 4.1.)
<Client #2 attempts to FETCH a mix of expunged and non-expunged
messages. A FETCH response is returned only for then non-expunged
messages along with a tagged NO>
C2: B001 FETCH 3:5 ENVELOPE
S2: * 3 FETCH ENVELOPE . . . (ENVELOPE info returned)
S2: B001 NO Some of the requested messages no longer exist
<Upon receiving a tagged NO FETCH response, Client #2 issues a NOOP
to be informed of any pending EXPUNGE responses>
C2: B002 NOOP
S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
S2: * 3 EXISTS
S2: B002 OK NOOP Completed.
<By receiving a FETCH response for message 3, and an EXPUNGE response
that indicates messages 4:7 have been expunged, the client does not
need to re-issue the FETCH>
Gahrns Informational [Page 7]
RFC 2180 IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice July 1997
4.1.3 The server MAY allow the EXPUNGE of a multi-accessed mailbox, and
on subsequent FETCH commands return the usual FETCH responses for
non-expunged messages, "NIL FETCH Responses" for expunged
messages, and a tagged OK response.
If all of the messages in the subsequent FETCH command have been
expunged, the server SHOULD return only a tagged NO. In this case,
the client SHOULD issue a NOOP command so that it will be informed of
any pending EXPUNGE responses. The client may then either reissue
the failed FETCH command, or by examining the EXPUNGE response from
the NOOP, determine that the FETCH failed because of pending
expunges.
"NIL FETCH responses" are a representation of empty data as
appropriate for the FETCH argument specified.
Example:
* 1 FETCH (ENVELOPE (NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL))
* 1 FETCH (FLAGS ())
* 1 FETCH (INTERNALDATE "00-Jan-0000 00:00:00 +0000")
* 1 FETCH (RFC822 "")
* 1 FETCH (RFC822.HEADER "")
* 1 FETCH (RFC822.TEXT "")
* 1 FETCH (RFC822.SIZE 0)
* 1 FETCH (BODY ("TEXT" "PLAIN" NIL NIL NIL "7BIT" 0 0)
* 1 FETCH (BODYSTRUCTURE ("TEXT" "PLAIN" NIL NIL NIL "7BIT" 0 0)
* 1 FETCH (BODY[<section>] "")
* 1 FETCH (BODY[<section>]<partial> "")
In some cases, a client may not be able to distinguish between "NIL
FETCH responses" received because a message was expunged and those
received because the data actually was NIL. For example, a * 5
FETCH (FLAGS ()) response could be received if no flags were set on
message 5, or because message 5 was expunged. In a case of potential
ambiguity, the client SHOULD issue a command such as NOOP to force
the sending of the EXPUNGE responses to resolve any ambiguity.
Example: (Building upon the scenario outlined in 4.1.)
<Client #2 attempts to access a mix of expunged and non-expunged
messages. Normal data is returned for non-expunged message, "NIL
FETCH responses" are returned for expunged messages>
Gahrns Informational [Page 8]
RFC 2180 IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice July 1997
C2: B002 FETCH 3:5 ENVELOPE
S2: * 3 FETCH ENVELOPE . . . (ENVELOPE info returned)
S2: * 4 FETCH ENVELOPE (NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL
NIL NIL)
S2: * 5 FETCH ENVELOPE (NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL
NIL NIL)
S2: B002 OK FETCH Completed
<Client #2 attempts to FETCH only expunged messages and receives a
tagged NO response>
C2: B002 FETCH 4:7 ENVELOPE
S2: B002 NO Messages 4:7 have been expunged.
4.1.4 To avoid the situation altogether, the server MAY fail the
EXPUNGE of a multi-accessed mailbox
In some cases, this behavior may not be practical. For example, if a
large number of clients are accessing a shared mailbox, the window in
which no clients have the mailbox accessed may be small or non-
existent, effectively rendering the message unexpungeable.
4.2. Storing of expunged messages
Following are some strategies an IMAP server may choose to use when
dealing with a STORE command on expunged messages.
4.2.1 If the ".SILENT" suffix is used, and the STORE completed
successfully for all the non-expunged messages, the server SHOULD
return a tagged OK.
Example: (Building upon the scenario outlined in 4.1.)
<Client #2 tries to silently STORE flags on expunged and non-
expunged messages. The server sets the flags on the non-expunged
messages and returns OK>
C2: B001 STORE 1:7 +FLAGS.SILENT (\SEEN)
S2: B001 OK
Gahrns Informational [Page 9]
RFC 2180 IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice July 1997
4.2.2. If the ".SILENT" suffix is not used, and only expunged messages
are referenced, the server SHOULD return only a tagged NO.
Example: (Building upon the scenario outlined in 4.1.)
<Client #2 tries to STORE flags only on expunged messages>
C2: B001 STORE 5:7 +FLAGS (\SEEN)
S2: B001 NO Messages have been expunged
4.2.3. If the ".SILENT" suffix is not used, and a mixture of expunged
and non-expunged messages are referenced, the server MAY set the
flags and return a FETCH response for the non-expunged messages
along with a tagged NO.
After receiving a tagged NO STORE response, the client SHOULD issue a
NOOP command so that it will be informed of any pending EXPUNGE
responses. The client may then either reissue the failed STORE
command, or by examining the EXPUNGE responses from the NOOP and
FETCH responses from the STORE, determine that the STORE failed
because of pending expunges.
Example: (Building upon the scenario outlined in 4.1.)
<Client #2 tries to STORE flags on a mixture of expunged and non-
expunged messages>
C2: B001 STORE 1:7 +FLAGS (\SEEN)
S2: * FETCH 1 FLAGS (\SEEN)
S2: * FETCH 2 FLAGS (\SEEN)
S2: * FETCH 3 FLAGS (\SEEN)
S2: B001 NO Some of the messages no longer exist.
C2: B002 NOOP
S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
S2: * 3 EXISTS
S2: B002 OK NOOP Completed.
<By receiving FETCH responses for messages 1:3, and an EXPUNGE
response that indicates messages 4:7 have been expunged, the client
does not need to re-issue the STORE>
Gahrns Informational [Page 10]
RFC 2180 IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice July 1997
4.2.4. If the ".SILENT" suffix is not used, and a mixture of expunged
and non-expunged messages are referenced, the server MAY return
an untagged NO and not set any flags.
After receiving a tagged NO STORE response, the client SHOULD issue a
NOOP command so that it will be informed of any pending EXPUNGE
responses. The client would then re-issue the STORE command after
updating its message list per any EXPUNGE response.
If a large number of clients are accessing a shared mailbox, the
window in which there are no pending expunges may be small or non-
existent, effectively disallowing a client from setting the flags on
all messages at once.
Example: (Building upon the scenario outlined in 4.1.)
<Client #2 tries to STORE flags on a mixture of expunged and non-
expunged messages>
C2: B001 STORE 1:7 +FLAGS (\SEEN)
S2: B001 NO Some of the messages no longer exist.
<Client #2 issues a NOOP to be informed of the EXPUNGED messages>
C2: B002 NOOP
S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
S2: * 3 EXISTS
S2: B002 OK NOOP Completed.
<Client #2 updates its message list and re-issues the STORE on only
those messages that have not been expunged>
C2: B003 STORE 1:3 +FLAGS (\SEEN) S2: * FETCH 1 FLAGS
(\SEEN) S2: * FETCH 2 FLAGS (\SEEN) S2: * FETCH 3 FLAGS
(\SEEN) S2: B003 OK STORE Completed
4.3. Searching of expunged messages
A server MAY simply not return a search response for messages that
have been expunged and it has not been able to inform the client
about. If a client was expecting a particular message to be returned
in a search result, and it was not, the client SHOULD issue a NOOP
command to see if the message was expunged by another client.
Gahrns Informational [Page 11]
RFC 2180 IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice July 1997
4.4 Copying of expunged messages
COPY is the only IMAP4 sequence number command that is safe to allow
an EXPUNGE response on. This is because a client is not permitted to
cascade several COPY commands together. A client is required to wait
and confirm that the copy worked before issuing another one.
4.4.1 The server MAY disallow the COPY of messages in a multi-access
mailbox that contains expunged messages.
Pending EXPUNGE response(s) MUST be returned to the COPY command.
Example:
C: A001 COPY 2,4,6,8 FRED
S: * 4 EXPUNGE
S: A001 NO COPY rejected, because some of the requested
messages were expunged
Note: Non of the above messages are copied because if a COPY command
is unsuccessful, the server MUST restore the destination mailbox to
its state before the COPY attempt.
4.4.2 The server MAY allow the COPY of messages in a multi-access
mailbox that contains expunged messages.
Pending EXPUNGE response(s) MUST be returned to the COPY command.
Messages that are copied are messages corresponding to sequence
numbers before any EXPUNGE response.
Example:
C: A001 COPY 2,4,6,8 FRED
S: * 3 EXPUNGE
S: A001 OK COPY completed
In the above example, the messages that are copied to FRED are
messages 2,4,6,8 at the start of the COPY command. These are
equivalent to messages 2,3,5,7 at the end of the COPY command. The
EXPUNGE response can't take place until after the messages from the
COPY command are identified (because of the "no expunge while no
commands in progress" rule).
Gahrns Informational [Page 12]
RFC 2180 IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice July 1997
Example:
C: A001 COPY 2,4,6,8 FRED
S: * 4 EXPUNGE
S: A001 OK COPY completed
In the above example, message 4 was copied before it was expunged,
and MUST appear in the destination mailbox FRED.
5. Security Considerations
This document describes behavior of servers that use the IMAP4
protocol, and as such, has the same security considerations as
described in [RFC-2060].
In particular, some described server behavior does not allow for the
immediate deletion of information when a mailbox is accessed by
multiple clients. This may be a consideration when dealing with
sensitive information where immediate deletion would be preferred.
6. References
[RFC-2060], Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
4rev1", RFC 2060, University of Washington, December 1996.
[RFC-2119], Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, Harvard University, March 1997.
7. Acknowledgments
This document is the result of discussions on the IMAP4 mailing list
and is meant to reflect consensus of this group. In particular,
Raymond Cheng, Mark Crispin, Jim Evans, Erik Forsberg, Steve Hole,
Mark Keasling, Barry Leiba, Syd Logan, John Mani, Pat Moran, Larry
Osterman, Chris Newman, Bart Schaefer, Vladimir Vulovic, and Jack De
Winter were active participants in this discussion or made
suggestions to this document.
Gahrns Informational [Page 13]
RFC 2180 IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice July 1997
8. Author's Address
Mike Gahrns
Microsoft
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA, 98072
Phone: (206) 936-9833
EMail: mikega@microsoft.com
Gahrns Informational [Page 14]

899
docs/rfcs/rfc2192.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,899 @@
Network Working Group C. Newman
Request for Comments: 2192 Innosoft
Category: Standards Track September 1997
IMAP URL Scheme
Status of this memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for
the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is
unlimited.
Abstract
IMAP [IMAP4] is a rich protocol for accessing remote message
stores. It provides an ideal mechanism for accessing public
mailing list archives as well as private and shared message stores.
This document defines a URL scheme for referencing objects on an
IMAP server.
1. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY"
in this document are to be interpreted as defined in "Key words for
use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [KEYWORDS].
2. IMAP scheme
The IMAP URL scheme is used to designate IMAP servers, mailboxes,
messages, MIME bodies [MIME], and search programs on Internet hosts
accessible using the IMAP protocol.
The IMAP URL follows the common Internet scheme syntax as defined
in RFC 1738 [BASIC-URL] except that clear text passwords are not
permitted. If :<port> is omitted, the port defaults to 143.
Newman Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2192 IMAP URL Scheme September 1997
An IMAP URL takes one of the following forms:
imap://<iserver>/
imap://<iserver>/<enc_list_mailbox>;TYPE=<list_type>
imap://<iserver>/<enc_mailbox>[uidvalidity][?<enc_search>]
imap://<iserver>/<enc_mailbox>[uidvalidity]<iuid>[isection]
The first form is used to refer to an IMAP server, the second form
refers to a list of mailboxes, the third form refers to the
contents of a mailbox or a set of messages resulting from a search,
and the final form refers to a specific message or message part.
Note that the syntax here is informal. The authoritative formal
syntax for IMAP URLs is defined in section 11.
3. IMAP User Name and Authentication Mechanism
A user name and/or authentication mechanism may be supplied. They
are used in the "LOGIN" or "AUTHENTICATE" commands after making the
connection to the IMAP server. If no user name or authentication
mechanism is supplied, the user name "anonymous" is used with the
"LOGIN" command and the password is supplied as the Internet e-mail
address of the end user accessing the resource. If the URL doesn't
supply a user name, the program interpreting the IMAP URL SHOULD
request one from the user if necessary.
An authentication mechanism can be expressed by adding
";AUTH=<enc_auth_type>" to the end of the user name. When such an
<enc_auth_type> is indicated, the client SHOULD request appropriate
credentials from that mechanism and use the "AUTHENTICATE" command
instead of the "LOGIN" command. If no user name is specified, one
SHOULD be obtained from the mechanism or requested from the user as
appropriate.
The string ";AUTH=*" indicates that the client SHOULD select an
appropriate authentication mechanism. It MAY use any mechanism
listed in the CAPABILITY command or use an out of band security
service resulting in a PREAUTH connection. If no user name is
specified and no appropriate authentication mechanisms are
available, the client SHOULD fall back to anonymous login as
described above. This allows a URL which grants read-write access
to authorized users, and read-only anonymous access to other users.
If a user name is included with no authentication mechanism, then
";AUTH=*" is assumed.
Newman Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2192 IMAP URL Scheme September 1997
Since URLs can easily come from untrusted sources, care must be
taken when resolving a URL which requires or requests any sort of
authentication. If authentication credentials are supplied to the
wrong server, it may compromise the security of the user's account.
The program resolving the URL should make sure it meets at least
one of the following criteria in this case:
(1) The URL comes from a trusted source, such as a referral server
which the client has validated and trusts according to site policy.
Note that user entry of the URL may or may not count as a trusted
source, depending on the experience level of the user and site
policy.
(2) Explicit local site policy permits the client to connect to the
server in the URL. For example, if the client knows the site
domain name, site policy may dictate that any hostname ending in
that domain is trusted.
(3) The user confirms that connecting to that domain name with the
specified credentials and/or mechanism is permitted.
(4) A mechanism is used which validates the server before passing
potentially compromising client credentials.
(5) An authentication mechanism is used which will not reveal
information to the server which could be used to compromise future
connections.
URLs which do not include a user name must be treated with extra
care, since they are more likely to compromise the user's primary
account. A URL containing ";AUTH=*" must also be treated with
extra care since it might fall back on a weaker security mechanism.
Finally, clients are discouraged from using a plain text password
as a fallback with ";AUTH=*" unless the connection has strong
encryption (e.g. a key length of greater than 56 bits).
A program interpreting IMAP URLs MAY cache open connections to an
IMAP server for later re-use. If a URL contains a user name, only
connections authenticated as that user may be re-used. If a URL
does not contain a user name or authentication mechanism, then only
an anonymous connection may be re-used. If a URL contains an
authentication mechanism without a user name, then any non-
anonymous connection may be re-used.
Note that if unsafe or reserved characters such as " " or ";" are
present in the user name or authentication mechanism, they MUST be
encoded as described in RFC 1738 [BASIC-URL].
Newman Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2192 IMAP URL Scheme September 1997
4. IMAP server
An IMAP URL referring to an IMAP server has the following form:
imap://<iserver>/
A program interpreting this URL would issue the standard set of
commands it uses to present a view of the contents of an IMAP
server. This is likely to be semanticly equivalent to one of the
following URLs:
imap://<iserver>/;TYPE=LIST
imap://<iserver>/;TYPE=LSUB
The program interpreting this URL SHOULD use the LSUB form if it
supports mailbox subscriptions.
5. Lists of mailboxes
An IMAP URL referring to a list of mailboxes has the following
form:
imap://<iserver>/<enc_list_mailbox>;TYPE=<list_type>
The <list_type> may be either "LIST" or "LSUB", and is case
insensitive. The field ";TYPE=<list_type>" MUST be included.
The <enc_list_mailbox> is any argument suitable for the
list_mailbox field of the IMAP [IMAP4] LIST or LSUB commands. The
field <enc_list_mailbox> may be omitted, in which case the program
interpreting the IMAP URL may use "*" or "%" as the
<enc_list_mailbox>. The program SHOULD use "%" if it supports a
hierarchical view, otherwise it SHOULD use "*".
Note that if unsafe or reserved characters such as " " or "%" are
present in <enc_list_mailbox> they MUST be encoded as described in
RFC 1738 [BASIC-URL]. If the character "/" is present in
enc_list_mailbox, it SHOULD NOT be encoded.
6. Lists of messages
An IMAP URL referring to a list of messages has the following form:
imap://<iserver>/<enc_mailbox>[uidvalidity][?<enc_search>]
Newman Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2192 IMAP URL Scheme September 1997
The <enc_mailbox> field is used as the argument to the IMAP4
"SELECT" command. Note that if unsafe or reserved characters such
as " ", ";", or "?" are present in <enc_mailbox> they MUST be
encoded as described in RFC 1738 [BASIC-URL]. If the character "/"
is present in enc_mailbox, it SHOULD NOT be encoded.
The [uidvalidity] field is optional. If it is present, it MUST be
the argument to the IMAP4 UIDVALIDITY status response at the time
the URL was created. This SHOULD be used by the program
interpreting the IMAP URL to determine if the URL is stale.
The [?<enc_search>] field is optional. If it is not present, the
contents of the mailbox SHOULD be presented by the program
interpreting the URL. If it is present, it SHOULD be used as the
arguments following an IMAP4 SEARCH command with unsafe characters
such as " " (which are likely to be present in the <enc_search>)
encoded as described in RFC 1738 [BASIC-URL].
7. A specific message or message part
An IMAP URL referring to a specific message or message part has the
following form:
imap://<iserver>/<enc_mailbox>[uidvalidity]<iuid>[isection]
The <enc_mailbox> and [uidvalidity] are as defined above.
If [uidvalidity] is present in this form, it SHOULD be used by the
program interpreting the URL to determine if the URL is stale.
The <iuid> refers to an IMAP4 message UID, and SHOULD be used as
the <set> argument to the IMAP4 "UID FETCH" command.
The [isection] field is optional. If not present, the URL refers
to the entire Internet message as returned by the IMAP command "UID
FETCH <uid> BODY.PEEK[]". If present, the URL refers to the object
returned by a "UID FETCH <uid> BODY.PEEK[<section>]" command. The
type of the object may be determined with a "UID FETCH <uid>
BODYSTRUCTURE" command and locating the appropriate part in the
resulting BODYSTRUCTURE. Note that unsafe characters in [isection]
MUST be encoded as described in [BASIC-URL].
Newman Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 2192 IMAP URL Scheme September 1997
8. Relative IMAP URLs
Relative IMAP URLs are permitted and are resolved according to the
rules defined in RFC 1808 [REL-URL] with one exception. In IMAP
URLs, parameters are treated as part of the normal path with
respect to relative URL resolution. This is believed to be the
behavior of the installed base and is likely to be documented in a
future revision of the relative URL specification.
The following observations are also important:
The <iauth> grammar element is considered part of the user name for
purposes of resolving relative IMAP URLs. This means that unless a
new login/server specification is included in the relative URL, the
authentication mechanism is inherited from a base IMAP URL.
URLs always use "/" as the hierarchy delimiter for the purpose of
resolving paths in relative URLs. IMAP4 permits the use of any
hierarchy delimiter in mailbox names. For this reason, relative
mailbox paths will only work if the mailbox uses "/" as the
hierarchy delimiter. Relative URLs may be used on mailboxes which
use other delimiters, but in that case, the entire mailbox name
MUST be specified in the relative URL or inherited as a whole from
the base URL.
The base URL for a list of mailboxes or messages which was referred
to by an IMAP URL is always the referring IMAP URL itself. The
base URL for a message or message part which was referred to by an
IMAP URL may be more complicated to determine. The program
interpreting the relative URL will have to check the headers of the
MIME entity and any enclosing MIME entities in order to locate the
"Content-Base" and "Content-Location" headers. These headers are
used to determine the base URL as defined in [HTTP]. For example,
if the referring IMAP URL contains a "/;SECTION=1.2" parameter,
then the MIME headers for section 1.2, for section 1, and for the
enclosing message itself SHOULD be checked in that order for
"Content-Base" or "Content-Location" headers.
9. Multinational Considerations
IMAP4 [IMAP4] section 5.1.3 includes a convention for encoding
non-US-ASCII characters in IMAP mailbox names. Because this
convention is private to IMAP, it is necessary to convert IMAP's
encoding to one that can be more easily interpreted by a URL
display program. For this reason, IMAP's modified UTF-7 encoding
for mailboxes MUST be converted to UTF-8 [UTF8]. Since 8-bit
characters are not permitted in URLs, the UTF-8 characters are
Newman Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 2192 IMAP URL Scheme September 1997
encoded as required by the URL specification [BASIC-URL]. Sample
code is included in Appendix A to demonstrate this conversion.
10. Examples
The following examples demonstrate how an IMAP4 client program
might translate various IMAP4 URLs into a series of IMAP4 commands.
Commands sent from the client to the server are prefixed with "C:",
and responses sent from the server to the client are prefixed with
"S:".
The URL:
<imap://minbari.org/gray-council;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=20>
Results in the following client commands:
<connect to minbari.org, port 143>
C: A001 LOGIN ANONYMOUS sheridan@babylon5.org
C: A002 SELECT gray-council
<client verifies the UIDVALIDITY matches>
C: A003 UID FETCH 20 BODY.PEEK[]
The URL:
<imap://michael@minbari.org/users.*;type=list>
Results in the following client commands:
<client requests password from user>
<connect to minbari.org imap server, activate strong encryption>
C: A001 LOGIN MICHAEL zipper
C: A002 LIST "" users.*
The URL:
<imap://psicorp.org/~peter/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E8%AA%9E/
%E5%8F%B0%E5%8C%97>
Results in the following client commands:
<connect to psicorp.org, port 143>
C: A001 LOGIN ANONYMOUS bester@psycop.psicorp.org
C: A002 SELECT ~peter/&ZeVnLIqe-/&U,BTFw-
<commands the client uses for viewing the contents of a mailbox>
Newman Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 2192 IMAP URL Scheme September 1997
The URL:
<imap://;AUTH=KERBEROS_V4@minbari.org/gray-council/;uid=20/
;section=1.2>
Results in the following client commands:
<connect to minbari.org, port 143>
C: A001 AUTHENTICATE KERBEROS_V4
<authentication exchange>
C: A002 SELECT gray-council
C: A003 UID FETCH 20 BODY.PEEK[1.2]
If the following relative URL is located in that body part:
<;section=1.4>
This could result in the following client commands:
C: A004 UID FETCH 20 (BODY.PEEK[1.2.MIME]
BODY.PEEK[1.MIME]
BODY.PEEK[HEADER.FIELDS (Content-Base Content-Location)])
<Client looks for Content-Base or Content-Location headers in
result. If no such headers, then it does the following>
C: A005 UID FETCH 20 BODY.PEEK[1.4]
The URL:
<imap://;AUTH=*@minbari.org/gray%20council?SUBJECT%20shadows>
Could result in the following:
<connect to minbari.org, port 143>
C: A001 CAPABILITY
S: * CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 AUTH=GSSAPI
S: A001 OK
C: A002 AUTHENTICATE GSSAPI
<authentication exchange>
S: A002 OK user lennier authenticated
C: A003 SELECT "gray council"
...
C: A004 SEARCH SUBJECT shadows
S: * SEARCH 8 10 13 14 15 16
S: A004 OK SEARCH completed
C: A005 FETCH 8,10,13:16 ALL
...
Newman Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 2192 IMAP URL Scheme September 1997
NOTE: In this final example, the client has implementation
dependent choices. The authentication mechanism could be anything,
including PREAUTH. And the final FETCH command could fetch more or
less information about the messages, depending on what it wishes to
display to the user.
11. Security Considerations
Security considerations discussed in the IMAP specification [IMAP4]
and the URL specification [BASIC-URL] are relevant. Security
considerations related to authenticated URLs are discussed in
section 3 of this document.
Many email clients store the plain text password for later use
after logging into an IMAP server. Such clients MUST NOT use a
stored password in response to an IMAP URL without explicit
permission from the user to supply that password to the specified
host name.
12. ABNF for IMAP URL scheme
This uses ABNF as defined in RFC 822 [IMAIL]. Terminals from the
BNF for IMAP [IMAP4] and URLs [BASIC-URL] are also used. Strings
are not case sensitive and free insertion of linear-white-space is
not permitted.
achar = uchar / "&" / "=" / "~"
; see [BASIC-URL] for "uchar" definition
bchar = achar / ":" / "@" / "/"
enc_auth_type = 1*achar
; encoded version of [IMAP-AUTH] "auth_type"
enc_list_mailbox = 1*bchar
; encoded version of [IMAP4] "list_mailbox"
enc_mailbox = 1*bchar
; encoded version of [IMAP4] "mailbox"
enc_search = 1*bchar
; encoded version of search_program below
enc_section = 1*bchar
; encoded version of section below
Newman Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 2192 IMAP URL Scheme September 1997
enc_user = 1*achar
; encoded version of [IMAP4] "userid"
imapurl = "imap://" iserver "/" [ icommand ]
iauth = ";AUTH=" ( "*" / enc_auth_type )
icommand = imailboxlist / imessagelist / imessagepart
imailboxlist = [enc_list_mailbox] ";TYPE=" list_type
imessagelist = enc_mailbox [ "?" enc_search ] [uidvalidity]
imessagepart = enc_mailbox [uidvalidity] iuid [isection]
isection = "/;SECTION=" enc_section
iserver = [iuserauth "@"] hostport
; See [BASIC-URL] for "hostport" definition
iuid = "/;UID=" nz_number
; See [IMAP4] for "nz_number" definition
iuserauth = enc_user [iauth] / [enc_user] iauth
list_type = "LIST" / "LSUB"
search_program = ["CHARSET" SPACE astring SPACE]
search_key *(SPACE search_key)
; IMAP4 literals may not be used
; See [IMAP4] for "astring" and "search_key"
section = section_text / (nz_number *["." nz_number]
["." (section_text / "MIME")])
; See [IMAP4] for "section_text" and "nz_number"
uidvalidity = ";UIDVALIDITY=" nz_number
; See [IMAP4] for "nz_number" definition
13. References
[BASIC-URL] Berners-Lee, Masinter, McCahill, "Uniform Resource
Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, CERN, Xerox Corporation, University of
Minnesota, December 1994.
<ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1738.txt>
Newman Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 2192 IMAP URL Scheme September 1997
[IMAP4] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
4rev1", RFC 2060, University of Washington, December 1996.
<ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2060.txt>
[IMAP-AUTH] Myers, J., "IMAP4 Authentication Mechanism", RFC 1731,
Carnegie-Mellon University, December 1994.
<ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1731.txt>
[HTTP] Fielding, Gettys, Mogul, Frystyk, Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2068, UC Irvine, DEC, MIT/LCS,
January 1997.
<ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2068.txt>
[IMAIL] Crocker, "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text
Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, University of Delaware, August 1982.
<ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc822.txt>
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, Harvard University, March 1997.
<ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2119.txt>
[MIME] Freed, N., Borenstein, N., "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions", RFC 2045, Innosoft, First Virtual, November 1996.
<ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2045.txt>
[REL-URL] Fielding, "Relative Uniform Resource Locators", RFC 1808,
UC Irvine, June 1995.
<ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1808.txt>
[UTF8] Yergeau, F. "UTF-8, a transformation format of Unicode and
ISO 10646", RFC 2044, Alis Technologies, October 1996.
<ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc2044.txt>
14. Author's Address
Chris Newman
Innosoft International, Inc.
1050 Lakes Drive
West Covina, CA 91790 USA
EMail: chris.newman@innosoft.com
Newman Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 2192 IMAP URL Scheme September 1997
Appendix A. Sample code
Here is sample C source code to convert between URL paths and IMAP
mailbox names, taking into account mapping between IMAP's modified UTF-7
[IMAP4] and hex-encoded UTF-8 which is more appropriate for URLs. This
code has not been rigorously tested nor does it necessarily behave
reasonably with invalid input, but it should serve as a useful example.
This code just converts the mailbox portion of the URL and does not deal
with parameters, query or server components of the URL.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
/* hexadecimal lookup table */
static char hex[] = "0123456789ABCDEF";
/* URL unsafe printable characters */
static char urlunsafe[] = " \"#%&+:;<=>?@[\\]^`{|}";
/* UTF7 modified base64 alphabet */
static char base64chars[] =
"ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+,";
#define UNDEFINED 64
/* UTF16 definitions */
#define UTF16MASK 0x03FFUL
#define UTF16SHIFT 10
#define UTF16BASE 0x10000UL
#define UTF16HIGHSTART 0xD800UL
#define UTF16HIGHEND 0xDBFFUL
#define UTF16LOSTART 0xDC00UL
#define UTF16LOEND 0xDFFFUL
/* Convert an IMAP mailbox to a URL path
* dst needs to have roughly 4 times the storage space of src
* Hex encoding can triple the size of the input
* UTF-7 can be slightly denser than UTF-8
* (worst case: 8 octets UTF-7 becomes 9 octets UTF-8)
*/
void MailboxToURL(char *dst, char *src)
{
unsigned char c, i, bitcount;
unsigned long ucs4, utf16, bitbuf;
unsigned char base64[256], utf8[6];
Newman Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 2192 IMAP URL Scheme September 1997
/* initialize modified base64 decoding table */
memset(base64, UNDEFINED, sizeof (base64));
for (i = 0; i < sizeof (base64chars); ++i) {
base64[base64chars[i]] = i;
}
/* loop until end of string */
while (*src != '\0') {
c = *src++;
/* deal with literal characters and &- */
if (c != '&' || *src == '-') {
if (c < ' ' || c > '~' || strchr(urlunsafe, c) != NULL) {
/* hex encode if necessary */
dst[0] = '%';
dst[1] = hex[c >> 4];
dst[2] = hex[c & 0x0f];
dst += 3;
} else {
/* encode literally */
*dst++ = c;
}
/* skip over the '-' if this is an &- sequence */
if (c == '&') ++src;
} else {
/* convert modified UTF-7 -> UTF-16 -> UCS-4 -> UTF-8 -> HEX */
bitbuf = 0;
bitcount = 0;
ucs4 = 0;
while ((c = base64[(unsigned char) *src]) != UNDEFINED) {
++src;
bitbuf = (bitbuf << 6) | c;
bitcount += 6;
/* enough bits for a UTF-16 character? */
if (bitcount >= 16) {
bitcount -= 16;
utf16 = (bitcount ? bitbuf >> bitcount
: bitbuf) & 0xffff;
/* convert UTF16 to UCS4 */
if
(utf16 >= UTF16HIGHSTART && utf16 <= UTF16HIGHEND) {
ucs4 = (utf16 - UTF16HIGHSTART) << UTF16SHIFT;
continue;
} else if
(utf16 >= UTF16LOSTART && utf16 <= UTF16LOEND) {
ucs4 += utf16 - UTF16LOSTART + UTF16BASE;
} else {
ucs4 = utf16;
}
Newman Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 2192 IMAP URL Scheme September 1997
/* convert UTF-16 range of UCS4 to UTF-8 */
if (ucs4 <= 0x7fUL) {
utf8[0] = ucs4;
i = 1;
} else if (ucs4 <= 0x7ffUL) {
utf8[0] = 0xc0 | (ucs4 >> 6);
utf8[1] = 0x80 | (ucs4 & 0x3f);
i = 2;
} else if (ucs4 <= 0xffffUL) {
utf8[0] = 0xe0 | (ucs4 >> 12);
utf8[1] = 0x80 | ((ucs4 >> 6) & 0x3f);
utf8[2] = 0x80 | (ucs4 & 0x3f);
i = 3;
} else {
utf8[0] = 0xf0 | (ucs4 >> 18);
utf8[1] = 0x80 | ((ucs4 >> 12) & 0x3f);
utf8[2] = 0x80 | ((ucs4 >> 6) & 0x3f);
utf8[3] = 0x80 | (ucs4 & 0x3f);
i = 4;
}
/* convert utf8 to hex */
for (c = 0; c < i; ++c) {
dst[0] = '%';
dst[1] = hex[utf8[c] >> 4];
dst[2] = hex[utf8[c] & 0x0f];
dst += 3;
}
}
}
/* skip over trailing '-' in modified UTF-7 encoding */
if (*src == '-') ++src;
}
}
/* terminate destination string */
*dst = '\0';
}
/* Convert hex coded UTF-8 URL path to modified UTF-7 IMAP mailbox
* dst should be about twice the length of src to deal with non-hex
* coded URLs
*/
void URLtoMailbox(char *dst, char *src)
{
unsigned int utf8pos, utf8total, i, c, utf7mode, bitstogo, utf16flag;
unsigned long ucs4, bitbuf;
unsigned char hextab[256];
/* initialize hex lookup table */
Newman Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 2192 IMAP URL Scheme September 1997
memset(hextab, 0, sizeof (hextab));
for (i = 0; i < sizeof (hex); ++i) {
hextab[hex[i]] = i;
if (isupper(hex[i])) hextab[tolower(hex[i])] = i;
}
utf7mode = 0;
utf8total = 0;
bitstogo = 0;
while ((c = *src) != '\0') {
++src;
/* undo hex-encoding */
if (c == '%' && src[0] != '\0' && src[1] != '\0') {
c = (hextab[src[0]] << 4) | hextab[src[1]];
src += 2;
}
/* normal character? */
if (c >= ' ' && c <= '~') {
/* switch out of UTF-7 mode */
if (utf7mode) {
if (bitstogo) {
*dst++ = base64chars[(bitbuf << (6 - bitstogo)) & 0x3F];
}
*dst++ = '-';
utf7mode = 0;
}
*dst++ = c;
/* encode '&' as '&-' */
if (c == '&') {
*dst++ = '-';
}
continue;
}
/* switch to UTF-7 mode */
if (!utf7mode) {
*dst++ = '&';
utf7mode = 1;
}
/* Encode US-ASCII characters as themselves */
if (c < 0x80) {
ucs4 = c;
utf8total = 1;
} else if (utf8total) {
/* save UTF8 bits into UCS4 */
ucs4 = (ucs4 << 6) | (c & 0x3FUL);
if (++utf8pos < utf8total) {
continue;
}
Newman Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 2192 IMAP URL Scheme September 1997
} else {
utf8pos = 1;
if (c < 0xE0) {
utf8total = 2;
ucs4 = c & 0x1F;
} else if (c < 0xF0) {
utf8total = 3;
ucs4 = c & 0x0F;
} else {
/* NOTE: can't convert UTF8 sequences longer than 4 */
utf8total = 4;
ucs4 = c & 0x03;
}
continue;
}
/* loop to split ucs4 into two utf16 chars if necessary */
utf8total = 0;
do {
if (ucs4 >= UTF16BASE) {
ucs4 -= UTF16BASE;
bitbuf = (bitbuf << 16) | ((ucs4 >> UTF16SHIFT)
+ UTF16HIGHSTART);
ucs4 = (ucs4 & UTF16MASK) + UTF16LOSTART;
utf16flag = 1;
} else {
bitbuf = (bitbuf << 16) | ucs4;
utf16flag = 0;
}
bitstogo += 16;
/* spew out base64 */
while (bitstogo >= 6) {
bitstogo -= 6;
*dst++ = base64chars[(bitstogo ? (bitbuf >> bitstogo)
: bitbuf)
& 0x3F];
}
} while (utf16flag);
}
/* if in UTF-7 mode, finish in ASCII */
if (utf7mode) {
if (bitstogo) {
*dst++ = base64chars[(bitbuf << (6 - bitstogo)) & 0x3F];
}
*dst++ = '-';
}
/* tie off string */
*dst = '\0';
}
Newman Standards Track [Page 16]

507
docs/rfcs/rfc2193.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,507 @@
Network Working Group M. Gahrns
Request for Comments: 2193 Microsoft
Category: Standards Track September 1997
IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
1. Abstract
When dealing with large amounts of users, messages and geographically
dispersed IMAP4 [RFC-2060] servers, it is often desirable to
distribute messages amongst different servers within an organization.
For example an administrator may choose to store user's personal
mailboxes on a local IMAP4 server, while storing shared mailboxes
remotely on another server. This type of configuration is common
when it is uneconomical to store all data centrally due to limited
bandwidth or disk resources.
Mailbox referrals allow clients to seamlessly access mailboxes that
are distributed across several IMAP4 servers.
A referral mechanism can provide efficiencies over the alternative
"proxy method", in which the local IMAP4 server contacts the remote
server on behalf of the client, and then transfers the data from the
remote server to itself, and then on to the client. The referral
mechanism's direct client connection to the remote server is often a
more efficient use of bandwidth, and does not require the local
server to impersonate the client when authenticating to the remote
server.
2. Conventions used in this document
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server respectively.
A home server, is an IMAP4 server that contains the user's inbox.
A remote mailbox is a mailbox that is not hosted on the user's home
server.
Gahrns Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2193 IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals September 1997
A remote server is a server that contains remote mailboxes.
A shared mailbox, is a mailbox that multiple users have access to.
An IMAP mailbox referral is when the server directs the client to
another IMAP mailbox.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC-2119].
3. Introduction and Overview
IMAP4 servers that support this extension MUST list the keyword
MAILBOX-REFERRALS in their CAPABILITY response. No client action is
needed to invoke the MAILBOX-REFERRALS capability in a server.
A MAILBOX-REFERRALS capable IMAP4 server MUST NOT return referrals
that result in a referrals loop.
A referral response consists of a tagged NO response and a REFERRAL
response code. The REFERRAL response code MUST contain as an
argument a one or more valid URLs separated by a space as defined in
[RFC-1738]. If a server replies with multiple URLs for a particular
object, they MUST all be of the same type. In this case, the URL MUST
be an IMAP URL as defined in [RFC-2192]. A client that supports the
REFERRALS extension MUST be prepared for a URL of any type, but it
need only be able to process IMAP URLs.
A server MAY respond with multiple IMAP mailbox referrals if there is
more than one replica of the mailbox. This allows the implementation
of a load balancing or failover scheme. How a server keeps multiple
replicas of a mailbox in sync is not addressed by this document.
If the server has a preferred order in which the client should
attempt to access the URLs, the preferred URL SHOULD be listed in the
first, with the remaining URLs presented in descending order of
preference. If multiple referrals are given for a mailbox, a server
should be aware that there are synchronization issues for a client if
the UIDVALIDITY of the referred mailboxes are different.
An IMAP mailbox referral may be given in response to an IMAP command
that specifies a mailbox as an argument.
Gahrns Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2193 IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals September 1997
Example:
A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/REMOTE]Remote Mailbox
NOTE: user;AUTH=* is specified as required by [RFC-2192] to avoid a
client falling back to anonymous login.
Remote mailboxes and their inferiors, that are accessible only via
referrals SHOULD NOT appear in LIST and LSUB responses issued against
the user's home server. They MUST appear in RLIST and RLSUB
responses issued against the user's home server. Hierarchy referrals,
in which a client would be required to connect to the remote server
to issue a LIST to discover the inferiors of a mailbox are not
addressed in this document.
For example, if shared mailboxes were only accessible via referrals
on a remote server, a RLIST "" "#SHARED/%" command would return the
same response if issued against the user's home server or the remote
server.
Note: Mailboxes that are available on the user's home server do not
need to be available on the remote server. In addition, there may be
additional mailboxes available on the remote server, but they will
not accessible to the client via referrals unless they appear in the
LIST response to the RLIST command against the user's home server.
A MAILBOX-REFERRALS capable client will issue the RLIST and RLSUB
commands in lieu of LIST and LSUB. The RLIST and RLSUB commands
behave identically to their LIST and LSUB counterparts, except remote
mailboxes are returned in addition to local mailboxes in the LIST and
LSUB responses. This avoids displaying to a non MAILBOX-REFERRALS
enabled client inaccessible remote mailboxes.
4.1. SELECT, EXAMINE, DELETE, SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, STATUS and APPEND
Referrals
An IMAP4 server MAY respond to the SELECT, EXAMINE, DELETE,
SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, STATUS or APPEND command with one or more
IMAP mailbox referrals to indicate to the client that the mailbox is
hosted on a remote server.
When a client processes an IMAP mailbox referral, it will open a new
connection or use an existing connection to the remote server so that
it is able to issue the commands necessary to process the remote
mailbox.
Gahrns Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2193 IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals September 1997
Example: <IMAP4 connection to home server>
C: A001 DELETE "SHARED/FOO"
S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/SHARED/FOO]
Remote mailbox. Try SERVER2.
<Client established a second connection to SERVER2 and
issues the DELETE command on the referred mailbox>
S: * OK IMAP4rev1 server ready
C: B001 AUTHENTICATE KERBEROS_V4
<authentication exchange>
S: B001 OK user is authenticated
C: B002 DELETE "SHARED/FOO"
S: B002 OK DELETE completed
Example: <IMAP4 connection to home server>
C: A001 SELECT REMOTE
S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/REMOTE
IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER3/REMOTE] Remote mailbox.
Try SERVER2 or SERVER3.
<Client opens second connection to remote server, and
issues the commands needed to process the items in the
remote mailbox>
S: * OK IMAP4rev1 server ready
C: B001 AUTHENTICATE KERBEROS_V4
<authentication exchange>
S: B001 OK user is authenticated
C: B002 SELECT REMOTE
S: * 12 EXISTS
S: * 1 RECENT
S: * OK [UNSEEN 10] Message 10 is first unseen
S: * OK [UIDVALIDITY 123456789]
S: * FLAGS (Answered Flagged Deleted Seen Draft)
S: * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (Answered Deleted Seen ]
S: B002 OK [READ-WRITE] Selected completed
C: B003 FETCH 10:12 RFC822
S: * 10 FETCH . . .
S: * 11 FETCH . . .
S: * 12 FETCH . . .
S: B003 OK FETCH Completed
Gahrns Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2193 IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals September 1997
<Client is finished processing the REMOTE mailbox and
wants to process a mailbox on its home server>
C: B004 LOGOUT
S: * BYE IMAP4rev1 server logging out
S: B004 OK LOGOUT Completed
<Client continues with first connection>
C: A002 SELECT INBOX
S: * 16 EXISTS
S: * 2 RECENT
S: * OK [UNSEEN 10] Message 10 is first unseen
S: * OK [UIDVALIDITY 123456789]
S: * FLAGS (Answered Flagged Deleted Seen Draft)
S: * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (Answered Deleted Seen ]
S: A002 OK [READ-WRITE] Selected completed
4.2. CREATE Referrals
An IMAP4 server MAY respond to the CREATE command with one or more
IMAP mailbox referrals, if it wishes to direct the client to issue
the CREATE against another server. The server can employ any means,
such as examining the hierarchy of the specified mailbox name, in
determining which server the mailbox should be created on.
Example:
C: A001 CREATE "SHARED/FOO"
S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/SHARED/FOO]
Mailbox should be created on remote server
Alternatively, because a home server is required to maintain a
listing of referred remote mailboxes, a server MAY allow the creation
of a mailbox that will ultimately reside on a remote server against
the home server, and provide referrals on subsequent commands that
manipulate the mailbox.
Example:
C: A001 CREATE "SHARED/FOO"
S: A001 OK CREATE succeeded
C: A002 SELECT "SHARED/FOO"
S: A002 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/SHARED/FOO]
Remote mailbox. Try SERVER2
Gahrns Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 2193 IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals September 1997
4.3. RENAME Referrals
An IMAP4 server MAY respond to the RENAME command with one or more
pairs of IMAP mailbox referrals. In each pair of IMAP mailbox
referrals, the first one is an URL to the existing mailbox name and
the second is an URL to the requested new mailbox name.
If within an IMAP mailbox referral pair, the existing and new mailbox
URLs are on different servers, the remote servers are unable to
perform the RENAME operation. To achieve the same behavior of
server RENAME, the client MAY issue the constituent CREATE, FETCH,
APPEND, and DELETE commands against both servers.
If within an IMAP mailbox referral pair, the existing and new mailbox
URLs are on the same server it is an indication that the currently
connected server is unable to perform the operation. The client can
simply re-issue the RENAME command on the remote server.
Example:
C: A001 RENAME FOO BAR
S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER1/FOO
IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/BAR] Unable to rename mailbox
across servers
Since the existing and new mailbox names are on different servers,
the client would be required to make a connection to both servers and
issue the constituent commands require to achieve the RENAME.
Example:
C: A001 RENAME FOO BAR
S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/FOO
IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/BAR] Unable to rename mailbox
located on SERVER2
Since both the existing and new mailbox are on the same remote
server, the client can simply make a connection to the remote server
and re-issue the RENAME command.
4.4. COPY Referrals
An IMAP4 server MAY respond to the COPY command with one or more IMAP
mailbox referrals. This indicates that the destination mailbox is on
a remote server. To achieve the same behavior of a server COPY, the
client MAY issue the constituent FETCH and APPEND commands against
both servers.
Gahrns Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 2193 IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals September 1997
Example:
C: A001 COPY 1 "SHARED/STUFF"
S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/SHARED/STUFF]
Unable to copy message(s) to SERVER2.
5.1 RLIST command
Arguments: reference name
mailbox name with possible wildcards
Responses: untagged responses: LIST
Result: OK - RLIST Completed
NO - RLIST Failure
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The RLIST command behaves identically to its LIST counterpart, except
remote mailboxes are returned in addition to local mailboxes in the
LIST responses.
5.2 RLSUB Command
Arguments: reference name
mailbox name with possible wildcards
Responses: untagged responses: LSUB
Result: OK - RLSUB Completed
NO - RLSUB Failure
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The RLSUB command behaves identically to its LSUB counterpart, except
remote mailboxes are returned in addition to local mailboxes in the
LSUB responses.
6. Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur
Form (BNF) as described in [ABNF].
list_mailbox = <list_mailbox> as defined in [RFC-2060]
mailbox = <mailbox> as defined in [RFC-2060]
mailbox_referral = <tag> SPACE "NO" SPACE
<referral_response_code> (text / text_mime2)
; See [RFC-2060] for <tag>, text and text_mime2 definition
Gahrns Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 2193 IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals September 1997
referral_response_code = "[" "REFERRAL" 1*(SPACE <url>) "]"
; See [RFC-1738] for <url> definition
rlist = "RLIST" SPACE mailbox SPACE list_mailbox
rlsub = "RLSUB" SPACE mailbox SPACE list_mailbox
6. Security Considerations
The IMAP4 referral mechanism makes use of IMAP URLs, and as such,
have the same security considerations as general internet URLs [RFC-
1738], and in particular IMAP URLs [RFC-2192].
With the MAILBOX-REFERRALS capability, it is potentially easier to
write a rogue server that injects a bogus referral response that
directs a user to an incorrect mailbox. Although referrals reduce
the effort to write such a server, the referral response makes
detection of the intrusion easier.
7. References
[RFC-2060], Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
4rev1", RFC 2060, University of Washington, December 1996.
[RFC-2192], Newman, C., "IMAP URL Scheme", RFC 2192, Innosoft,
September 1997.
[RFC-1738], Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, "Uniform
Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, CERN, Xerox Corporation,
University of Minnesota, December 1994.
[RFC-2119], Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, Harvard University, March 1997.
[ABNF], DRUMS working group, Dave Crocker Editor, "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", Work in Progress, Internet Mail
Consortium, April 1997.
8. Acknowledgments
Many valuable suggestions were received from private discussions and
the IMAP4 mailing list. In particular, Raymond Cheng, Mark Crispin,
Mark Keasling, Chris Newman and Larry Osterman made significant
contributions to this document.
Gahrns Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 2193 IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals September 1997
9. Author's Address
Mike Gahrns
Microsoft
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA, 98072
Phone: (206) 936-9833
EMail: mikega@microsoft.com
Gahrns Standards Track [Page 9]

283
docs/rfcs/rfc2195.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
Network Working Group J. Klensin
Request for Comments: 2195 R. Catoe
Category: Standards Track P. Krumviede
Obsoletes: 2095 MCI
September 1997
IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension for Simple Challenge/Response
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
While IMAP4 supports a number of strong authentication mechanisms as
described in RFC 1731, it lacks any mechanism that neither passes
cleartext, reusable passwords across the network nor requires either
a significant security infrastructure or that the mail server update
a mail-system-wide user authentication file on each mail access.
This specification provides a simple challenge-response
authentication protocol that is suitable for use with IMAP4. Since
it utilizes Keyed-MD5 digests and does not require that the secret be
stored in the clear on the server, it may also constitute an
improvement on APOP for POP3 use as specified in RFC 1734.
1. Introduction
Existing Proposed Standards specify an AUTHENTICATE mechanism for the
IMAP4 protocol [IMAP, IMAP-AUTH] and a parallel AUTH mechanism for
the POP3 protocol [POP3-AUTH]. The AUTHENTICATE mechanism is
intended to be extensible; the four methods specified in [IMAP-AUTH]
are all fairly powerful and require some security infrastructure to
support. The base POP3 specification [POP3] also contains a
lightweight challenge-response mechanism called APOP. APOP is
associated with most of the risks associated with such protocols: in
particular, it requires that both the client and server machines have
access to the shared secret in cleartext form. CRAM offers a method
for avoiding such cleartext storage while retaining the algorithmic
simplicity of APOP in using only MD5, though in a "keyed" method.
Klensin, Catoe & Krumviede Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2195 IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension September 1997
At present, IMAP [IMAP] lacks any facility corresponding to APOP.
The only alternative to the strong mechanisms identified in [IMAP-
AUTH] is a presumably cleartext username and password, supported
through the LOGIN command in [IMAP]. This document describes a
simple challenge-response mechanism, similar to APOP and PPP CHAP
[PPP], that can be used with IMAP (and, in principle, with POP3).
This mechanism also has the advantage over some possible alternatives
of not requiring that the server maintain information about email
"logins" on a per-login basis. While mechanisms that do require such
per-login history records may offer enhanced security, protocols such
as IMAP, which may have several connections between a given client
and server open more or less simultaneous, may make their
implementation particularly challenging.
2. Challenge-Response Authentication Mechanism (CRAM)
The authentication type associated with CRAM is "CRAM-MD5".
The data encoded in the first ready response contains an
presumptively arbitrary string of random digits, a timestamp, and the
fully-qualified primary host name of the server. The syntax of the
unencoded form must correspond to that of an RFC 822 'msg-id'
[RFC822] as described in [POP3].
The client makes note of the data and then responds with a string
consisting of the user name, a space, and a 'digest'. The latter is
computed by applying the keyed MD5 algorithm from [KEYED-MD5] where
the key is a shared secret and the digested text is the timestamp
(including angle-brackets).
This shared secret is a string known only to the client and server.
The `digest' parameter itself is a 16-octet value which is sent in
hexadecimal format, using lower-case ASCII characters.
When the server receives this client response, it verifies the digest
provided. If the digest is correct, the server should consider the
client authenticated and respond appropriately.
Keyed MD5 is chosen for this application because of the greater
security imparted to authentication of short messages. In addition,
the use of the techniques described in [KEYED-MD5] for precomputation
of intermediate results make it possible to avoid explicit cleartext
storage of the shared secret on the server system by instead storing
the intermediate results which are known as "contexts".
Klensin, Catoe & Krumviede Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2195 IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension September 1997
CRAM does not support a protection mechanism.
Example:
The examples in this document show the use of the CRAM mechanism with
the IMAP4 AUTHENTICATE command [IMAP-AUTH]. The base64 encoding of
the challenges and responses is part of the IMAP4 AUTHENTICATE
command, not part of the CRAM specification itself.
S: * OK IMAP4 Server
C: A0001 AUTHENTICATE CRAM-MD5
S: + PDE4OTYuNjk3MTcwOTUyQHBvc3RvZmZpY2UucmVzdG9uLm1jaS5uZXQ+
C: dGltIGI5MTNhNjAyYzdlZGE3YTQ5NWI0ZTZlNzMzNGQzODkw
S: A0001 OK CRAM authentication successful
In this example, the shared secret is the string
'tanstaaftanstaaf'. Hence, the Keyed MD5 digest is produced by
calculating
MD5((tanstaaftanstaaf XOR opad),
MD5((tanstaaftanstaaf XOR ipad),
<1896.697170952@postoffice.reston.mci.net>))
where ipad and opad are as defined in the keyed-MD5 Work in
Progress [KEYED-MD5] and the string shown in the challenge is the
base64 encoding of <1896.697170952@postoffice.reston.mci.net>. The
shared secret is null-padded to a length of 64 bytes. If the
shared secret is longer than 64 bytes, the MD5 digest of the
shared secret is used as a 16 byte input to the keyed MD5
calculation.
This produces a digest value (in hexadecimal) of
b913a602c7eda7a495b4e6e7334d3890
The user name is then prepended to it, forming
tim b913a602c7eda7a495b4e6e7334d3890
Which is then base64 encoded to meet the requirements of the IMAP4
AUTHENTICATE command (or the similar POP3 AUTH command), yielding
dGltIGI5MTNhNjAyYzdlZGE3YTQ5NWI0ZTZlNzMzNGQzODkw
Klensin, Catoe & Krumviede Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2195 IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension September 1997
3. References
[CHAP] Lloyd, B., and W. Simpson, "PPP Authentication Protocols",
RFC 1334, October 1992.
[IMAP] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
4rev1", RFC 2060, University of Washington, December 1996.
[IMAP-AUTH] Myers, J., "IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms",
RFC 1731, Carnegie Mellon, December 1994.
[KEYED-MD5] Krawczyk, Bellare, Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for
Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February 1997.
[MD5] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message Digest Algorithm",
RFC 1321, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, April 1992.
[POP3] Myers, J., and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3",
STD 53, RFC 1939, Carnegie Mellon, May 1996.
[POP3-AUTH] Myers, J., "POP3 AUTHentication command", RFC 1734,
Carnegie Mellon, December, 1994.
4. Security Considerations
It is conjectured that use of the CRAM authentication mechanism
provides origin identification and replay protection for a session.
Accordingly, a server that implements both a cleartext password
command and this authentication type should not allow both methods of
access for a given user.
While the saving, on the server, of "contexts" (see section 2) is
marginally better than saving the shared secrets in cleartext as is
required by CHAP [CHAP] and APOP [POP3], it is not sufficient to
protect the secrets if the server itself is compromised.
Consequently, servers that store the secrets or contexts must both be
protected to a level appropriate to the potential information value
in user mailboxes and identities.
As the length of the shared secret increases, so does the difficulty
of deriving it.
While there are now suggestions in the literature that the use of MD5
and keyed MD5 in authentication procedures probably has a limited
effective lifetime, the technique is now widely deployed and widely
understood. It is believed that this general understanding may
assist with the rapid replacement, by CRAM-MD5, of the current uses
of permanent cleartext passwords in IMAP. This document has been
Klensin, Catoe & Krumviede Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2195 IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension September 1997
deliberately written to permit easy upgrading to use SHA (or whatever
alternatives emerge) when they are considered to be widely available
and adequately safe.
Even with the use of CRAM, users are still vulnerable to active
attacks. An example of an increasingly common active attack is 'TCP
Session Hijacking' as described in CERT Advisory CA-95:01 [CERT95].
See section 1 above for additional discussion.
5. Acknowledgements
This memo borrows ideas and some text liberally from [POP3] and
[RFC-1731] and thanks are due the authors of those documents. Ran
Atkinson made a number of valuable technical and editorial
contributions to the document.
6. Authors' Addresses
John C. Klensin
MCI Telecommunications
800 Boylston St, 7th floor
Boston, MA 02199
USA
EMail: klensin@mci.net
Phone: +1 617 960 1011
Randy Catoe
MCI Telecommunications
2100 Reston Parkway
Reston, VA 22091
USA
EMail: randy@mci.net
Phone: +1 703 715 7366
Paul Krumviede
MCI Telecommunications
2100 Reston Parkway
Reston, VA 22091
USA
EMail: paul@mci.net
Phone: +1 703 715 7251
Klensin, Catoe & Krumviede Standards Track [Page 5]

283
docs/rfcs/rfc2221.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
Network Working Group M. Gahrns
Request for Comments: 2221 Microsoft
Category: Standards Track October 1997
IMAP4 Login Referrals
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997). All Rights Reserved.
1. Abstract
When dealing with large amounts of users and many IMAP4 [RFC-2060]
servers, it is often necessary to move users from one IMAP4 server to
another. For example, hardware failures or organizational changes
may dictate such a move.
Login referrals allow clients to transparently connect to an
alternate IMAP4 server, if their home IMAP4 server has changed.
A referral mechanism can provide efficiencies over the alternative
'proxy method', in which the local IMAP4 server contacts the remote
server on behalf of the client, and then transfers the data from the
remote server to itself, and then on to the client. The referral
mechanism's direct client connection to the remote server is often a
more efficient use of bandwidth, and does not require the local
server to impersonate the client when authenticating to the remote
server.
2. Conventions used in this document
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server respectively.
A home server, is an IMAP4 server that contains the user's inbox.
A remote server is a server that contains remote mailboxes.
Gahrns Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2221 IMAP4 Login Referrals October 1997
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC-2119].
3. Introduction and Overview
IMAP4 servers that support this extension MUST list the keyword
LOGIN-REFERRALS in their CAPABILITY response. No client action is
needed to invoke the LOGIN-REFERRALS capability in a server.
A LOGIN-REFERRALS capable IMAP4 server SHOULD NOT return a referral
to a server that will return a referral. A client MUST NOT follow
more than 10 levels of referral without consulting the user.
A LOGIN-REFERRALS response code MUST contain as an argument a valid
IMAP server URL as defined in [IMAP-URL].
A home server referral consists of either a tagged NO or OK, or an
untagged BYE response that contains a LOGIN-REFERRALS response code.
Example: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/] Remote Server
NOTE: user;AUTH=* is specified as required by [IMAP-URL] to avoid a
client falling back to anonymous login.
4. Home Server Referrals
A home server referral may be returned in response to an AUTHENTICATE
or LOGIN command, or it may appear in the connection startup banner.
If a server returns a home server referral in a tagged NO response,
that server does not contain any mailboxes that are accessible to the
user. If a server returns a home server referral in a tagged OK
response, it indicates that the user's personal mailboxes are
elsewhere, but the server contains public mailboxes which are
readable by the user. After receiving a home server referral, the
client can not make any assumptions as to whether this was a
permanent or temporary move of the user.
4.1. LOGIN and AUTHENTICATE Referrals
An IMAP4 server MAY respond to a LOGIN or AUTHENTICATE command with a
home server referral if it wishes to direct the user to another IMAP4
server.
Example: C: A001 LOGIN MIKE PASSWORD
S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://MIKE@SERVER2/] Specified user
is invalid on this server. Try SERVER2.
Gahrns Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2221 IMAP4 Login Referrals October 1997
Example: C: A001 LOGIN MATTHEW PASSWORD
S: A001 OK [REFERRAL IMAP://MATTHEW@SERVER2/] Specified
user's personal mailboxes located on Server2, but
public mailboxes are available.
Example: C: A001 AUTHENTICATE GSSAPI
<authentication exchange>
S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=GSSAPI@SERVER2/]
Specified user is invalid on this server. Try
SERVER2.
4.2. BYE at connection startup referral
An IMAP4 server MAY respond with an untagged BYE and a REFERRAL
response code that contains an IMAP URL to a home server if it is not
willing to accept connections and wishes to direct the client to
another IMAP4 server.
Example: S: * BYE [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/] Server not
accepting connections. Try SERVER2
5. Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur
Form (BNF) as described in [ABNF].
This amends the "resp_text_code" element of the IMAP4 grammar
described in [RFC-2060]
resp_text_code =/ "REFERRAL" SPACE <imapurl>
; See [IMAP-URL] for definition of <imapurl>
; See [RFC-2060] for base definition of resp_text_code
6. Security Considerations
The IMAP4 login referral mechanism makes use of IMAP URLs, and as
such, have the same security considerations as general internet URLs
[RFC-1738], and in particular IMAP URLs [IMAP-URL].
A server MUST NOT give a login referral if authentication for that
user fails. This is to avoid revealing information about the user's
account to an unauthorized user.
With the LOGIN-REFERRALS capability, it is potentially easier to
write a rogue 'password catching' server that collects login data and
then refers the client to their actual IMAP4 server. Although
referrals reduce the effort to write such a server, the referral
response makes detection of the intrusion easier.
Gahrns Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2221 IMAP4 Login Referrals October 1997
7. References
[RFC-2060], Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
4rev1", RFC 2060, December 1996.
[IMAP-URL], Newman, C., "IMAP URL Scheme", RFC 2192, Innosoft,
September 1997.
[RFC-1738], Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L. and M. McCahill, "Uniform
Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, December 1994.
[RFC-2119], Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[ABNF], DRUMS working group, Dave Crocker Editor, "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", Work in Progress.
8. Acknowledgments
Many valuable suggestions were received from private discussions and
the IMAP4 mailing list. In particular, Raymond Cheng, Mark Crispin,
Mark Keasling Chris Newman and Larry Osterman made significant
contributions to this document.
9. Author's Address
Mike Gahrns
Microsoft
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA, 98072
Phone: (206) 936-9833
EMail: mikega@microsoft.com
Gahrns Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2221 IMAP4 Login Referrals October 1997
10. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997). 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 implmentation may be prepared, copied, published
andand 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
English.
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
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
Gahrns Standards Track [Page 5]

4035
docs/rfcs/rfc2244.txt Normal file
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

563
docs/rfcs/rfc2342.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,563 @@
Network Working Group M. Gahrns
Request for Comments: 2342 Microsoft
Category: Standards Track C. Newman
Innosoft
May 1998
IMAP4 Namespace
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
1. Abstract
IMAP4 [RFC-2060] does not define a default server namespace. As a
result, two common namespace models have evolved:
The "Personal Mailbox" model, in which the default namespace that is
presented consists of only the user's personal mailboxes. To access
shared mailboxes, the user must use an escape mechanism to reach
another namespace.
The "Complete Hierarchy" model, in which the default namespace that
is presented includes the user's personal mailboxes along with any
other mailboxes they have access to.
These two models, create difficulties for certain client operations.
This document defines a NAMESPACE command that allows a client to
discover the prefixes of namespaces used by a server for personal
mailboxes, other users' mailboxes, and shared mailboxes. This allows
a client to avoid much of the manual user configuration that is now
necessary when mixing and matching IMAP4 clients and servers.
2. Conventions used in this document
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server respectively. If such lines are wrapped without a new "C:" or
"S:" label, then the wrapping is for editorial clarity and is not
part of the command.
Gahrns & Newman Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2342 IMAP4 Namespace May 1998
Personal Namespace: A namespace that the server considers within the
personal scope of the authenticated user on a particular connection.
Typically, only the authenticated user has access to mailboxes in
their Personal Namespace. It is the part of the namespace that
belongs to the user that is allocated for mailboxes. If an INBOX
exists for a user, it MUST appear within the user's personal
namespace. In the typical case, there SHOULD be only one Personal
Namespace on a server.
Other Users' Namespace: A namespace that consists of mailboxes from
the Personal Namespaces of other users. To access mailboxes in the
Other Users' Namespace, the currently authenticated user MUST be
explicitly granted access rights. For example, it is common for a
manager to grant to their secretary access rights to their mailbox.
In the typical case, there SHOULD be only one Other Users' Namespace
on a server.
Shared Namespace: A namespace that consists of mailboxes that are
intended to be shared amongst users and do not exist within a user's
Personal Namespace.
The namespaces a server uses MAY differ on a per-user basis.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC-2119].
3. Introduction and Overview
Clients often attempt to create mailboxes for such purposes as
maintaining a record of sent messages (e.g. "Sent Mail") or
temporarily saving messages being composed (e.g. "Drafts"). For
these clients to inter-operate correctly with the variety of IMAP4
servers available, the user must enter the prefix of the Personal
Namespace used by the server. Using the NAMESPACE command, a client
is able to automatically discover this prefix without manual user
configuration.
In addition, users are often required to manually enter the prefixes
of various namespaces in order to view the mailboxes located there.
For example, they might be required to enter the prefix of #shared to
view the shared mailboxes namespace. The NAMESPACE command allows a
client to automatically discover the namespaces that are available on
a server. This allows a client to present the available namespaces to
the user in what ever manner it deems appropriate. For example, a
Gahrns & Newman Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2342 IMAP4 Namespace May 1998
client could choose to initially display only personal mailboxes, or
it may choose to display the complete list of mailboxes available,
and initially position the user at the root of their Personal
Namespace.
A server MAY choose to make available to the NAMESPACE command only a
subset of the complete set of namespaces the server supports. To
provide the ability to access these namespaces, a client SHOULD allow
the user the ability to manually enter a namespace prefix.
4. Requirements
IMAP4 servers that support this extension MUST list the keyword
NAMESPACE in their CAPABILITY response.
The NAMESPACE command is valid in the Authenticated and Selected
state.
5. NAMESPACE Command
Arguments: none
Response: an untagged NAMESPACE response that contains the prefix
and hierarchy delimiter to the server's Personal
Namespace(s), Other Users' Namespace(s), and Shared
Namespace(s) that the server wishes to expose. The
response will contain a NIL for any namespace class
that is not available. Namespace_Response_Extensions
MAY be included in the response.
Namespace_Response_Extensions which are not on the IETF
standards track, MUST be prefixed with an "X-".
Result: OK - Command completed
NO - Error: Can't complete command
BAD - argument invalid
Example 5.1:
===========
< A server that supports a single personal namespace. No leading
prefix is used on personal mailboxes and "/" is the hierarchy
delimiter.>
C: A001 NAMESPACE
S: * NAMESPACE (("" "/")) NIL NIL
S: A001 OK NAMESPACE command completed
Gahrns & Newman Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2342 IMAP4 Namespace May 1998
Example 5.2:
===========
< A user logged on anonymously to a server. No personal mailboxes
are associated with the anonymous user and the user does not have
access to the Other Users' Namespace. No prefix is required to
access shared mailboxes and the hierarchy delimiter is "." >
C: A001 NAMESPACE
S: * NAMESPACE NIL NIL (("" "."))
S: A001 OK NAMESPACE command completed
Example 5.3:
===========
< A server that contains a Personal Namespace and a single Shared
Namespace. >
C: A001 NAMESPACE
S: * NAMESPACE (("" "/")) NIL (("Public Folders/" "/"))
S: A001 OK NAMESPACE command completed
Example 5.4:
===========
< A server that contains a Personal Namespace, Other Users'
Namespace and multiple Shared Namespaces. Note that the hierarchy
delimiter used within each namespace can be different. >
C: A001 NAMESPACE
S: * NAMESPACE (("" "/")) (("~" "/")) (("#shared/" "/")
("#public/" "/")("#ftp/" "/")("#news." "."))
S: A001 OK NAMESPACE command completed
The prefix string allows a client to do things such as automatically
creating personal mailboxes or LISTing all available mailboxes within
a namespace.
Example 5.5:
===========
< A server that supports only the Personal Namespace, with a
leading prefix of INBOX to personal mailboxes and a hierarchy
delimiter of ".">
C: A001 NAMESPACE
S: * NAMESPACE (("INBOX." ".")) NIL NIL
S: A001 OK NAMESPACE command completed
Gahrns & Newman Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2342 IMAP4 Namespace May 1998
< Automatically create a mailbox to store sent items.>
C: A002 CREATE "INBOX.Sent Mail"
S: A002 OK CREATE command completed
Although typically a server will support only a single Personal
Namespace, and a single Other User's Namespace, circumstances exist
where there MAY be multiples of these, and a client MUST be prepared
for them. If a client is configured such that it is required to
create a certain mailbox, there can be circumstances where it is
unclear which Personal Namespaces it should create the mailbox in.
In these situations a client SHOULD let the user select which
namespaces to create the mailbox in.
Example 5.6:
===========
< In this example, a server supports 2 Personal Namespaces. In
addition to the regular Personal Namespace, the user has an
additional personal namespace to allow access to mailboxes in an
MH format mailstore. >
< The client is configured to save a copy of all mail sent by the
user into a mailbox called 'Sent Mail'. Furthermore, after a
message is deleted from a mailbox, the client is configured to
move that message to a mailbox called 'Deleted Items'.>
< Note that this example demonstrates how some extension flags can
be passed to further describe the #mh namespace. >
C: A001 NAMESPACE
S: * NAMESPACE (("" "/")("#mh/" "/" "X-PARAM" ("FLAG1" "FLAG2")))
NIL NIL
S: A001 OK NAMESPACE command completed
< It is desired to keep only one copy of sent mail. It is unclear
which Personal Namespace the client should use to create the 'Sent
Mail' mailbox. The user is prompted to select a namespace and
only one 'Sent Mail' mailbox is created. >
C: A002 CREATE "Sent Mail"
S: A002 OK CREATE command completed
< The client is designed so that it keeps two 'Deleted Items'
mailboxes, one for each namespace. >
C: A003 CREATE "Delete Items"
S: A003 OK CREATE command completed
Gahrns & Newman Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 2342 IMAP4 Namespace May 1998
C: A004 CREATE "#mh/Deleted Items"
S: A004 OK CREATE command completed
The next level of hierarchy following the Other Users' Namespace
prefix SHOULD consist of <username>, where <username> is a user name
as per the IMAP4 LOGIN or AUTHENTICATE command.
A client can construct a LIST command by appending a "%" to the Other
Users' Namespace prefix to discover the Personal Namespaces of other
users that are available to the currently authenticated user.
In response to such a LIST command, a server SHOULD NOT return user
names that have not granted access to their personal mailboxes to the
user in question.
A server MAY return a LIST response containing only the names of
users that have explicitly granted access to the user in question.
Alternatively, a server MAY return NO to such a LIST command,
requiring that a user name be included with the Other Users'
Namespace prefix before listing any other user's mailboxes.
Example 5.7:
===========
< A server that supports providing a list of other user's
mailboxes that are accessible to the currently logged on user. >
C: A001 NAMESPACE
S: * NAMESPACE (("" "/")) (("Other Users/" "/")) NIL
S: A001 OK NAMESPACE command completed
C: A002 LIST "" "Other Users/%"
S: * LIST () "/" "Other Users/Mike"
S: * LIST () "/" "Other Users/Karen"
S: * LIST () "/" "Other Users/Matthew"
S: * LIST () "/" "Other Users/Tesa"
S: A002 OK LIST command completed
Example 5.8:
===========
< A server that does not support providing a list of other user's
mailboxes that are accessible to the currently logged on user.
The mailboxes are listable if the client includes the name of the
other user with the Other Users' Namespace prefix. >
Gahrns & Newman Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 2342 IMAP4 Namespace May 1998
C: A001 NAMESPACE
S: * NAMESPACE (("" "/")) (("#Users/" "/")) NIL
S: A001 OK NAMESPACE command completed
< In this example, the currently logged on user has access to the
Personal Namespace of user Mike, but the server chose to suppress
this information in the LIST response. However, by appending the
user name Mike (received through user input) to the Other Users'
Namespace prefix, the client is able to get a listing of the
personal mailboxes of user Mike. >
C: A002 LIST "" "#Users/%"
S: A002 NO The requested item could not be found.
C: A003 LIST "" "#Users/Mike/%"
S: * LIST () "/" "#Users/Mike/INBOX"
S: * LIST () "/" "#Users/Mike/Foo"
S: A003 OK LIST command completed.
A prefix string might not contain a hierarchy delimiter, because
in some cases it is not needed as part of the prefix.
Example 5.9:
===========
< A server that allows access to the Other Users' Namespace by
prefixing the others' mailboxes with a '~' followed by <username>,
where <username> is a user name as per the IMAP4 LOGIN or
AUTHENTICATE command.>
C: A001 NAMESPACE
S: * NAMESPACE (("" "/")) (("~" "/")) NIL
S: A001 OK NAMESPACE command completed
< List the mailboxes for user mark >
C: A002 LIST "" "~mark/%"
S: * LIST () "/" "~mark/INBOX"
S: * LIST () "/" "~mark/foo"
S: A002 OK LIST command completed
Historical convention has been to start all namespaces with the "#"
character. Namespaces that include the "#" character are not IMAP
URL [IMAP-URL] friendly requiring the "#" character to be represented
as %23 when within URLs. As such, server implementers MAY instead
consider using namespace prefixes that do not contain the "#"
character.
Gahrns & Newman Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 2342 IMAP4 Namespace May 1998
6. Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur
Form (BNF) as described in [ABNF].
atom = <atom>
; <atom> as defined in [RFC-2060]
Namespace = nil / "(" 1*( "(" string SP (<"> QUOTED_CHAR <"> /
nil) *(Namespace_Response_Extension) ")" ) ")"
Namespace_Command = "NAMESPACE"
Namespace_Response_Extension = SP string SP "(" string *(SP string)
")"
Namespace_Response = "*" SP "NAMESPACE" SP Namespace SP Namespace SP
Namespace
; The first Namespace is the Personal Namespace(s)
; The second Namespace is the Other Users' Namespace(s)
; The third Namespace is the Shared Namespace(s)
nil = <nil>
; <nil> as defined in [RFC-2060]
QUOTED_CHAR = <QUOTED_CHAR>
; <QUOTED_CHAR> as defined in [RFC-2060]
string = <string>
; <string> as defined in [RFC-2060]
; Note that the namespace prefix is to a mailbox and following
; IMAP4 convention, any international string in the NAMESPACE
; response MUST be of modified UTF-7 format as described in
; [RFC-2060].
7. Security Considerations
In response to a LIST command containing an argument of the Other
Users' Namespace prefix, a server SHOULD NOT list users that have not
granted list access to their personal mailboxes to the currently
authenticated user. Providing such a list, could compromise security
by potentially disclosing confidential information of who is located
on the server, or providing a starting point of a list of user
accounts to attack.
Gahrns & Newman Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 2342 IMAP4 Namespace May 1998
8. References
[RFC-2060], Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol Version
4rev1", RFC 2060, December 1996.
[RFC-2119], Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[ABNF] Crocker, D., Editor, and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
[IMAP-URL], Newman, C., "IMAP URL Scheme", RFC 2192, September 1997.
9. Acknowledgments
Many people have participated in the discussion of IMAP namespaces on
the IMAP mailing list. In particular, the authors would like to
thank Mark Crispin for many of the concepts relating to the Personal
Namespace and accessing the Personal Namespace of other users, Steve
Hole for summarizing the two namespace models, John Myers and Jack De
Winter for their work in a preceding effort trying to define a
standardized personal namespace, and Larry Osterman for his review
and collaboration on this document.
11. Authors' Addresses
Mike Gahrns
Microsoft
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA, 98072, USA
Phone: (425) 936-9833
EMail: mikega@microsoft.com
Chris Newman
Innosoft International, Inc.
1050 East Garvey Ave. South
West Covina, CA, 91790, USA
EMail: chris.newman@innosoft.com
Gahrns & Newman Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 2342 IMAP4 Namespace May 1998
12. 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
English.
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
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Gahrns & Newman Standards Track [Page 10]

339
docs/rfcs/rfc2359.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,339 @@
Network Working Group J. Myers
Request for Comments: 2359 Netscape Communications
Category: Standards Track June 1998
IMAP4 UIDPLUS extension
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
IESG NOTE
The IMAP extension described here assumes a particular means of using
IMAP to support disconnected operation. However, this means of
supporting disconnected operation is not yet documented. Also, there
are multiple theories about how best to do disconnected operation in
IMAP, and as yet, there is no consensus on which one should be
adopted as a standard.
This document is being approved as a Proposed Standard because it
does not appear to have technical flaws in itelf. However, approval
of this document as a Proposed Standard should not be considered an
IETF endorsement of any particular means of doing disconnected
operation in IMAP.
Table of Contents
1. Abstract .............................................. 2
2. Conventions Used in this Document ..................... 2
3. Introduction and Overview ............................. 2
4. Features .............................................. 2
4.1. UID EXPUNGE Command ................................... 2
4.2. APPENDUID response code ............................... 3
4.3. COPYUID response code ................................. 4
5. Formal Syntax ......................................... 4
6. References ............................................ 4
7. Security Considerations ............................... 5
8. Author's Address ...................................... 5
9. Full Copyright Statement .............................. 6
Myers Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2359 IMAP4 UIDPLUS extension June 1998
1. Abstract
The UIDPLUS extension of the Internet Message Access Protocol [IMAP4]
provides a set of features intended to reduce the amount of time and
resources used by some client operations. The features in UIDPLUS
are primarily intended for disconnected-use clients.
2. Conventions Used in this Document
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server respectively.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY"
in this document are to be interpreted as defined in "Key words for
use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [KEYWORDS].
3. Introduction and Overview
The UIDPLUS extension is present in any IMAP4 server implementation
which returns "UIDPLUS" as one of the supported capabilities to the
CAPABILITY command. The UIDPLUS extension contains one additional
command and additional data returned with successful APPEND and COPY
commands.
Clients that wish to use the new command in UIDPLUS must of course
first test for the presence of the extension by issuing a CAPABILITY
command. Each of the features in UIDPLUS are optimizations; clients
can provide the same functionality, albeit more slowly, by using
commands in the base protocol. With each feature, this document
recommends a fallback approach to take when the UIDPLUS extension is
not supported by the server.
4. Features
4.1. UID EXPUNGE Command
Arguments: message set
Data: untagged responses: EXPUNGE
Result: OK - expunge completed
NO - expunge failure (e.g. permission denied)
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
Myers Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2359 IMAP4 UIDPLUS extension June 1998
The UID EXPUNGE command permanently removes from the currently
selected mailbox all messages that both have the \Deleted flag set
and have a UID that is included in the specified message set. If
a message either does not have the \Deleted flag set or is has a
UID that is not included in the specified message set, it is not
affected.
This command may be used to ensure that a replayed EXPUNGE command
does not remove any messages that have been marked as \Deleted
between the time that the user requested the expunge operation and
the time the server processes the command.
If the server does not support the UIDPLUS capability, the client
should fall back to using the STORE command to temporarily remove
the \Deleted flag from messages it does not want to remove. The
client could alternatively fall back to using the EXPUNGE command,
risking the unintended removal of some messages.
Example: C: A003 UID EXPUNGE 3000:3002
S: * 3 EXPUNGE
S: * 3 EXPUNGE
S: * 3 EXPUNGE
S: A003 OK UID EXPUNGE completed
4.2. APPENDUID response code
Successful APPEND commands return an APPENDUID response code in the
tagged OK response. The APPENDUID response code contains as
arguments the UIDVALIDITY of the destination mailbox and the UID
assigned to the appended message.
If the server does not support the UIDPLUS capability, the client can
only discover this information by selecting the destination mailbox
and issuing FETCH commands.
Example: C: A003 APPEND saved-messages (\Seen) {310}
C: Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 21:52:25 -0800 (PST)
C: From: Fred Foobar <foobar@Blurdybloop.COM>
C: Subject: afternoon meeting
C: To: mooch@owatagu.siam.edu
C: Message-Id: <B27397-0100000@Blurdybloop.COM>
C: MIME-Version: 1.0
C: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
C:
C: Hello Joe, do you think we can meet at 3:30 tomorrow?
C:
S: A003 OK [APPENDUID 38505 3955] APPEND completed
Myers Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2359 IMAP4 UIDPLUS extension June 1998
4.3. COPYUID response code
Successful COPY and UID COPY commands return a COPYUID response code
in the tagged OK response whenever at least one message was copied.
The COPYUID response code contains as an argument the UIDVALIDITY of
the appended-to mailbox, a message set containing the UIDs of the
messages copied to the destination mailbox, in the order they were
copied, and a message containing the UIDs assigned to the copied
messages, in the order they were assigned. Neither of the message
sets may contain extraneous UIDs or the symbol '*'.
If the server does not support the UIDPLUS capability, the client can
only discover this information by selecting the destination mailbox
and issuing FETCH commands.
Example: C: A003 COPY 2:4 MEETING
S: A003 OK [COPYUID 38505 304,319:320 3956:3958] Done
C: A003 UID COPY 305:310 MEETING
S: A003 OK Done
5. Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur
Form (BNF) notation as specified in [RFC-822] as modified by [IMAP4].
Non-terminals referenced but not defined below are as defined by
[IMAP4].
Except as noted otherwise, all alphabetic characters are case-
insensitive. The use of upper or lower case characters to define
token strings is for editorial clarity only. Implementations MUST
accept these strings in a case-insensitive fashion.
resp_code_apnd ::= "APPENDUID" SPACE nz_number SPACE uniqueid
resp_code_copy ::= "COPYUID" SPACE nz_number SPACE set SPACE set
uid_expunge ::= "UID" SPACE "EXPUNGE" SPACE set
6. References
[IMAP4] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol -
Version 4rev1", RFC 2060, December 1996.
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC-822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet
Text Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.
Myers Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2359 IMAP4 UIDPLUS extension June 1998
7. Security Considerations
There are no known security issues with this extension.
8. Author's Address
John Gardiner Myers
Netscape Communications
501 East Middlefield Road
Mail Stop MV-029
Mountain View, CA 94043
EMail: jgmyers@netscape.com
Myers Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 2359 IMAP4 UIDPLUS extension June 1998
9. 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
English.
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
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Myers Standards Track [Page 6]

843
docs/rfcs/rfc2595.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,843 @@
Network Working Group C. Newman
Request for Comments: 2595 Innosoft
Category: Standards Track June 1999
Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
1. Motivation
The TLS protocol (formerly known as SSL) provides a way to secure an
application protocol from tampering and eavesdropping. The option of
using such security is desirable for IMAP, POP and ACAP due to common
connection eavesdropping and hijacking attacks [AUTH]. Although
advanced SASL authentication mechanisms can provide a lightweight
version of this service, TLS is complimentary to simple
authentication-only SASL mechanisms or deployed clear-text password
login commands.
Many sites have a high investment in authentication infrastructure
(e.g., a large database of a one-way-function applied to user
passwords), so a privacy layer which is not tightly bound to user
authentication can protect against network eavesdropping attacks
without requiring a new authentication infrastructure and/or forcing
all users to change their password. Recognizing that such sites will
desire simple password authentication in combination with TLS
encryption, this specification defines the PLAIN SASL mechanism for
use with protocols which lack a simple password authentication
command such as ACAP and SMTP. (Note there is a separate RFC for the
STARTTLS command in SMTP [SMTPTLS].)
There is a strong desire in the IETF to eliminate the transmission of
clear-text passwords over unencrypted channels. While SASL can be
used for this purpose, TLS provides an additional tool with different
deployability characteristics. A server supporting both TLS with
Newman Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2595 Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP June 1999
simple passwords and a challenge/response SASL mechanism is likely to
interoperate with a wide variety of clients without resorting to
unencrypted clear-text passwords.
The STARTTLS command rectifies a number of the problems with using a
separate port for a "secure" protocol variant. Some of these are
mentioned in section 7.
1.1. Conventions Used in this Document
The key words "REQUIRED", "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels" [KEYWORDS].
Terms related to authentication are defined in "On Internet
Authentication" [AUTH].
Formal syntax is defined using ABNF [ABNF].
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server respectively.
2. Basic Interoperability and Security Requirements
The following requirements apply to all implementations of the
STARTTLS extension for IMAP, POP3 and ACAP.
2.1. Cipher Suite Requirements
Implementation of the TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA [TLS] cipher
suite is REQUIRED. This is important as it assures that any two
compliant implementations can be configured to interoperate.
All other cipher suites are OPTIONAL.
2.2. Privacy Operational Mode Security Requirements
Both clients and servers SHOULD have a privacy operational mode which
refuses authentication unless successful activation of an encryption
layer (such as that provided by TLS) occurs prior to or at the time
of authentication and which will terminate the connection if that
encryption layer is deactivated. Implementations are encouraged to
have flexability with respect to the minimal encryption strength or
cipher suites permitted. A minimalist approach to this
recommendation would be an operational mode where the
TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA cipher suite is mandatory prior to
permitting authentication.
Newman Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2595 Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP June 1999
Clients MAY have an operational mode which uses encryption only when
it is advertised by the server, but authentication continues
regardless. For backwards compatibility, servers SHOULD have an
operational mode where only the authentication mechanisms required by
the relevant base protocol specification are needed to successfully
authenticate.
2.3. Clear-Text Password Requirements
Clients and servers which implement STARTTLS MUST be configurable to
refuse all clear-text login commands or mechanisms (including both
standards-track and nonstandard mechanisms) unless an encryption
layer of adequate strength is active. Servers which allow
unencrypted clear-text logins SHOULD be configurable to refuse
clear-text logins both for the entire server, and on a per-user
basis.
2.4. Server Identity Check
During the TLS negotiation, the client MUST check its understanding
of the server hostname against the server's identity as presented in
the server Certificate message, in order to prevent man-in-the-middle
attacks. Matching is performed according to these rules:
- The client MUST use the server hostname it used to open the
connection as the value to compare against the server name as
expressed in the server certificate. The client MUST NOT use any
form of the server hostname derived from an insecure remote source
(e.g., insecure DNS lookup). CNAME canonicalization is not done.
- If a subjectAltName extension of type dNSName is present in the
certificate, it SHOULD be used as the source of the server's
identity.
- Matching is case-insensitive.
- A "*" wildcard character MAY be used as the left-most name
component in the certificate. For example, *.example.com would
match a.example.com, foo.example.com, etc. but would not match
example.com.
- If the certificate contains multiple names (e.g. more than one
dNSName field), then a match with any one of the fields is
considered acceptable.
If the match fails, the client SHOULD either ask for explicit user
confirmation, or terminate the connection and indicate the server's
identity is suspect.
Newman Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2595 Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP June 1999
2.5. TLS Security Policy Check
Both the client and server MUST check the result of the STARTTLS
command and subsequent TLS negotiation to see whether acceptable
authentication or privacy was achieved. Ignoring this step
completely invalidates using TLS for security. The decision about
whether acceptable authentication or privacy was achieved is made
locally, is implementation-dependent, and is beyond the scope of this
document.
3. IMAP STARTTLS extension
When the TLS extension is present in IMAP, "STARTTLS" is listed as a
capability in response to the CAPABILITY command. This extension
adds a single command, "STARTTLS" to the IMAP protocol which is used
to begin a TLS negotiation.
3.1. STARTTLS Command
Arguments: none
Responses: no specific responses for this command
Result: OK - begin TLS negotiation
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
A TLS negotiation begins immediately after the CRLF at the end of
the tagged OK response from the server. Once a client issues a
STARTTLS command, it MUST NOT issue further commands until a
server response is seen and the TLS negotiation is complete.
The STARTTLS command is only valid in non-authenticated state.
The server remains in non-authenticated state, even if client
credentials are supplied during the TLS negotiation. The SASL
[SASL] EXTERNAL mechanism MAY be used to authenticate once TLS
client credentials are successfully exchanged, but servers
supporting the STARTTLS command are not required to support the
EXTERNAL mechanism.
Once TLS has been started, the client MUST discard cached
information about server capabilities and SHOULD re-issue the
CAPABILITY command. This is necessary to protect against
man-in-the-middle attacks which alter the capabilities list prior
to STARTTLS. The server MAY advertise different capabilities
after STARTTLS.
The formal syntax for IMAP is amended as follows:
Newman Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2595 Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP June 1999
command_any =/ "STARTTLS"
Example: C: a001 CAPABILITY
S: * CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 STARTTLS LOGINDISABLED
S: a001 OK CAPABILITY completed
C: a002 STARTTLS
S: a002 OK Begin TLS negotiation now
<TLS negotiation, further commands are under TLS layer>
C: a003 CAPABILITY
S: * CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 AUTH=EXTERNAL
S: a003 OK CAPABILITY completed
C: a004 LOGIN joe password
S: a004 OK LOGIN completed
3.2. IMAP LOGINDISABLED capability
The current IMAP protocol specification (RFC 2060) requires the
implementation of the LOGIN command which uses clear-text passwords.
Many sites may choose to disable this command unless encryption is
active for security reasons. An IMAP server MAY advertise that the
LOGIN command is disabled by including the LOGINDISABLED capability
in the capability response. Such a server will respond with a tagged
"NO" response to any attempt to use the LOGIN command.
An IMAP server which implements STARTTLS MUST implement support for
the LOGINDISABLED capability on unencrypted connections.
An IMAP client which complies with this specification MUST NOT issue
the LOGIN command if this capability is present.
This capability is useful to prevent clients compliant with this
specification from sending an unencrypted password in an environment
subject to passive attacks. It has no impact on an environment
subject to active attacks as a man-in-the-middle attacker can remove
this capability. Therefore this does not relieve clients of the need
to follow the privacy mode recommendation in section 2.2.
Servers advertising this capability will fail to interoperate with
many existing compliant IMAP clients and will be unable to prevent
those clients from disclosing the user's password.
4. POP3 STARTTLS extension
The POP3 STARTTLS extension adds the STLS command to POP3 servers.
If this is implemented, the POP3 extension mechanism [POP3EXT] MUST
also be implemented to avoid the need for client probing of multiple
commands. The capability name "STLS" indicates this command is
present and permitted in the current state.
Newman Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 2595 Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP June 1999
STLS
Arguments: none
Restrictions:
Only permitted in AUTHORIZATION state.
Discussion:
A TLS negotiation begins immediately after the CRLF at the
end of the +OK response from the server. A -ERR response
MAY result if a security layer is already active. Once a
client issues a STLS command, it MUST NOT issue further
commands until a server response is seen and the TLS
negotiation is complete.
The STLS command is only permitted in AUTHORIZATION state
and the server remains in AUTHORIZATION state, even if
client credentials are supplied during the TLS negotiation.
The AUTH command [POP-AUTH] with the EXTERNAL mechanism
[SASL] MAY be used to authenticate once TLS client
credentials are successfully exchanged, but servers
supporting the STLS command are not required to support the
EXTERNAL mechanism.
Once TLS has been started, the client MUST discard cached
information about server capabilities and SHOULD re-issue
the CAPA command. This is necessary to protect against
man-in-the-middle attacks which alter the capabilities list
prior to STLS. The server MAY advertise different
capabilities after STLS.
Possible Responses:
+OK -ERR
Examples:
C: STLS
S: +OK Begin TLS negotiation
<TLS negotiation, further commands are under TLS layer>
...
C: STLS
S: -ERR Command not permitted when TLS active
Newman Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 2595 Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP June 1999
5. ACAP STARTTLS extension
When the TLS extension is present in ACAP, "STARTTLS" is listed as a
capability in the ACAP greeting. No arguments to this capability are
defined at this time. This extension adds a single command,
"STARTTLS" to the ACAP protocol which is used to begin a TLS
negotiation.
5.1. STARTTLS Command
Arguments: none
Responses: no specific responses for this command
Result: OK - begin TLS negotiation
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
A TLS negotiation begins immediately after the CRLF at the end of
the tagged OK response from the server. Once a client issues a
STARTTLS command, it MUST NOT issue further commands until a
server response is seen and the TLS negotiation is complete.
The STARTTLS command is only valid in non-authenticated state.
The server remains in non-authenticated state, even if client
credentials are supplied during the TLS negotiation. The SASL
[SASL] EXTERNAL mechanism MAY be used to authenticate once TLS
client credentials are successfully exchanged, but servers
supporting the STARTTLS command are not required to support the
EXTERNAL mechanism.
After the TLS layer is established, the server MUST re-issue an
untagged ACAP greeting. This is necessary to protect against
man-in-the-middle attacks which alter the capabilities list prior
to STARTTLS. The client MUST discard cached capability
information and replace it with the information from the new ACAP
greeting. The server MAY advertise different capabilities after
STARTTLS.
The formal syntax for ACAP is amended as follows:
command_any =/ "STARTTLS"
Example: S: * ACAP (SASL "CRAM-MD5") (STARTTLS)
C: a002 STARTTLS
S: a002 OK "Begin TLS negotiation now"
<TLS negotiation, further commands are under TLS layer>
S: * ACAP (SASL "CRAM-MD5" "PLAIN" "EXTERNAL")
Newman Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 2595 Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP June 1999
6. PLAIN SASL mechanism
Clear-text passwords are simple, interoperate with almost all
existing operating system authentication databases, and are useful
for a smooth transition to a more secure password-based
authentication mechanism. The drawback is that they are unacceptable
for use over an unencrypted network connection.
This defines the "PLAIN" SASL mechanism for use with ACAP and other
protocols with no clear-text login command. The PLAIN SASL mechanism
MUST NOT be advertised or used unless a strong encryption layer (such
as the provided by TLS) is active or backwards compatibility dictates
otherwise.
The mechanism consists of a single message from the client to the
server. The client sends the authorization identity (identity to
login as), followed by a US-ASCII NUL character, followed by the
authentication identity (identity whose password will be used),
followed by a US-ASCII NUL character, followed by the clear-text
password. The client may leave the authorization identity empty to
indicate that it is the same as the authentication identity.
The server will verify the authentication identity and password with
the system authentication database and verify that the authentication
credentials permit the client to login as the authorization identity.
If both steps succeed, the user is logged in.
The server MAY also use the password to initialize any new
authentication database, such as one suitable for CRAM-MD5
[CRAM-MD5].
Non-US-ASCII characters are permitted as long as they are represented
in UTF-8 [UTF-8]. Use of non-visible characters or characters which
a user may be unable to enter on some keyboards is discouraged.
The formal grammar for the client message using Augmented BNF [ABNF]
follows.
message = [authorize-id] NUL authenticate-id NUL password
authenticate-id = 1*UTF8-SAFE ; MUST accept up to 255 octets
authorize-id = 1*UTF8-SAFE ; MUST accept up to 255 octets
password = 1*UTF8-SAFE ; MUST accept up to 255 octets
NUL = %x00
UTF8-SAFE = %x01-09 / %x0B-0C / %x0E-7F / UTF8-2 /
UTF8-3 / UTF8-4 / UTF8-5 / UTF8-6
UTF8-1 = %x80-BF
UTF8-2 = %xC0-DF UTF8-1
UTF8-3 = %xE0-EF 2UTF8-1
Newman Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 2595 Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP June 1999
UTF8-4 = %xF0-F7 3UTF8-1
UTF8-5 = %xF8-FB 4UTF8-1
UTF8-6 = %xFC-FD 5UTF8-1
Here is an example of how this might be used to initialize a CRAM-MD5
authentication database for ACAP:
Example: S: * ACAP (SASL "CRAM-MD5") (STARTTLS)
C: a001 AUTHENTICATE "CRAM-MD5"
S: + "<1896.697170952@postoffice.reston.mci.net>"
C: "tim b913a602c7eda7a495b4e6e7334d3890"
S: a001 NO (TRANSITION-NEEDED)
"Please change your password, or use TLS to login"
C: a002 STARTTLS
S: a002 OK "Begin TLS negotiation now"
<TLS negotiation, further commands are under TLS layer>
S: * ACAP (SASL "CRAM-MD5" "PLAIN" "EXTERNAL")
C: a003 AUTHENTICATE "PLAIN" {21+}
C: <NUL>tim<NUL>tanstaaftanstaaf
S: a003 OK CRAM-MD5 password initialized
Note: In this example, <NUL> represents a single ASCII NUL octet.
7. imaps and pop3s ports
Separate "imaps" and "pop3s" ports were registered for use with SSL.
Use of these ports is discouraged in favor of the STARTTLS or STLS
commands.
A number of problems have been observed with separate ports for
"secure" variants of protocols. This is an attempt to enumerate some
of those problems.
- Separate ports lead to a separate URL scheme which intrudes into
the user interface in inappropriate ways. For example, many web
pages use language like "click here if your browser supports SSL."
This is a decision the browser is often more capable of making than
the user.
- Separate ports imply a model of either "secure" or "not secure."
This can be misleading in a number of ways. First, the "secure"
port may not in fact be acceptably secure as an export-crippled
cipher suite might be in use. This can mislead users into a false
sense of security. Second, the normal port might in fact be
secured by using a SASL mechanism which includes a security layer.
Thus the separate port distinction makes the complex topic of
security policy even more confusing. One common result of this
confusion is that firewall administrators are often misled into
Newman Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 2595 Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP June 1999
permitting the "secure" port and blocking the standard port. This
could be a poor choice given the common use of SSL with a 40-bit
key encryption layer and plain-text password authentication is less
secure than strong SASL mechanisms such as GSSAPI with Kerberos 5.
- Use of separate ports for SSL has caused clients to implement only
two security policies: use SSL or don't use SSL. The desirable
security policy "use TLS when available" would be cumbersome with
the separate port model, but is simple with STARTTLS.
- Port numbers are a limited resource. While they are not yet in
short supply, it is unwise to set a precedent that could double (or
worse) the speed of their consumption.
8. IANA Considerations
This constitutes registration of the "STARTTLS" and "LOGINDISABLED"
IMAP capabilities as required by section 7.2.1 of RFC 2060 [IMAP].
The registration for the POP3 "STLS" capability follows:
CAPA tag: STLS
Arguments: none
Added commands: STLS
Standard commands affected: May enable USER/PASS as a side-effect.
CAPA command SHOULD be re-issued after successful completion.
Announced states/Valid states: AUTHORIZATION state only.
Specification reference: this memo
The registration for the ACAP "STARTTLS" capability follows:
Capability name: STARTTLS
Capability keyword: STARTTLS
Capability arguments: none
Published Specification(s): this memo
Person and email address for further information:
see author's address section below
The registration for the PLAIN SASL mechanism follows:
SASL mechanism name: PLAIN
Security Considerations: See section 9 of this memo
Published specification: this memo
Person & email address to contact for further information:
see author's address section below
Intended usage: COMMON
Author/Change controller: see author's address section below
Newman Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 2595 Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP June 1999
9. Security Considerations
TLS only provides protection for data sent over a network connection.
Messages transferred over IMAP or POP3 are still available to server
administrators and usually subject to eavesdropping, tampering and
forgery when transmitted through SMTP or NNTP. TLS is no substitute
for an end-to-end message security mechanism using MIME security
multiparts [MIME-SEC].
A man-in-the-middle attacker can remove STARTTLS from the capability
list or generate a failure response to the STARTTLS command. In
order to detect such an attack, clients SHOULD warn the user when
session privacy is not active and/or be configurable to refuse to
proceed without an acceptable level of security.
A man-in-the-middle attacker can always cause a down-negotiation to
the weakest authentication mechanism or cipher suite available. For
this reason, implementations SHOULD be configurable to refuse weak
mechanisms or cipher suites.
Any protocol interactions prior to the TLS handshake are performed in
the clear and can be modified by a man-in-the-middle attacker. For
this reason, clients MUST discard cached information about server
capabilities advertised prior to the start of the TLS handshake.
Clients are encouraged to clearly indicate when the level of
encryption active is known to be vulnerable to attack using modern
hardware (such as encryption keys with 56 bits of entropy or less).
The LOGINDISABLED IMAP capability (discussed in section 3.2) only
reduces the potential for passive attacks, it provides no protection
against active attacks. The responsibility remains with the client
to avoid sending a password over a vulnerable channel.
The PLAIN mechanism relies on the TLS encryption layer for security.
When used without TLS, it is vulnerable to a common network
eavesdropping attack. Therefore PLAIN MUST NOT be advertised or used
unless a suitable TLS encryption layer is active or backwards
compatibility dictates otherwise.
When the PLAIN mechanism is used, the server gains the ability to
impersonate the user to all services with the same password
regardless of any encryption provided by TLS or other network privacy
mechanisms. While many other authentication mechanisms have similar
weaknesses, stronger SASL mechanisms such as Kerberos address this
issue. Clients are encouraged to have an operational mode where all
mechanisms which are likely to reveal the user's password to the
server are disabled.
Newman Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 2595 Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP June 1999
The security considerations for TLS apply to STARTTLS and the
security considerations for SASL apply to the PLAIN mechanism.
Additional security requirements are discussed in section 2.
10. References
[ABNF] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
[ACAP] Newman, C. and J. Myers, "ACAP -- Application
Configuration Access Protocol", RFC 2244, November 1997.
[AUTH] Haller, N. and R. Atkinson, "On Internet Authentication",
RFC 1704, October 1994.
[CRAM-MD5] Klensin, J., Catoe, R. and P. Krumviede, "IMAP/POP
AUTHorize Extension for Simple Challenge/Response", RFC
2195, September 1997.
[IMAP] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
4rev1", RFC 2060, December 1996.
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[MIME-SEC] Galvin, J., Murphy, S., Crocker, S. and N. Freed,
"Security Multiparts for MIME: Multipart/Signed and
Multipart/Encrypted", RFC 1847, October 1995.
[POP3] Myers, J. and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3",
STD 53, RFC 1939, May 1996.
[POP3EXT] Gellens, R., Newman, C. and L. Lundblade, "POP3 Extension
Mechanism", RFC 2449, November 1998.
[POP-AUTH] Myers, J., "POP3 AUTHentication command", RFC 1734,
December 1994.
[SASL] Myers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer
(SASL)", RFC 2222, October 1997.
[SMTPTLS] Hoffman, P., "SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over
TLS", RFC 2487, January 1999.
[TLS] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0",
RFC 2246, January 1999.
Newman Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 2595 Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP June 1999
[UTF-8] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", RFC 2279, January 1998.
11. Author's Address
Chris Newman
Innosoft International, Inc.
1050 Lakes Drive
West Covina, CA 91790 USA
EMail: chris.newman@innosoft.com
A. Appendix -- Compliance Checklist
An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more
of the MUST requirements for the protocols it implements. An
implementation that satisfies all the MUST and all the SHOULD
requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally
compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST requirements but not all
the SHOULD requirements for its protocols is said to be
"conditionally compliant".
Rules Section
----- -------
Mandatory-to-implement Cipher Suite 2.1
SHOULD have mode where encryption required 2.2
server SHOULD have mode where TLS not required 2.2
MUST be configurable to refuse all clear-text login
commands or mechanisms 2.3
server SHOULD be configurable to refuse clear-text
login commands on entire server and on per-user basis 2.3
client MUST check server identity 2.4
client MUST use hostname used to open connection 2.4
client MUST NOT use hostname from insecure remote lookup 2.4
client SHOULD support subjectAltName of dNSName type 2.4
client SHOULD ask for confirmation or terminate on fail 2.4
MUST check result of STARTTLS for acceptable privacy 2.5
client MUST NOT issue commands after STARTTLS
until server response and negotiation done 3.1,4,5.1
client MUST discard cached information 3.1,4,5.1,9
client SHOULD re-issue CAPABILITY/CAPA command 3.1,4
IMAP server with STARTTLS MUST implement LOGINDISABLED 3.2
IMAP client MUST NOT issue LOGIN if LOGINDISABLED 3.2
POP server MUST implement POP3 extensions 4
ACAP server MUST re-issue ACAP greeting 5.1
Newman Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 2595 Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP June 1999
client SHOULD warn when session privacy not active and/or
refuse to proceed without acceptable security level 9
SHOULD be configurable to refuse weak mechanisms or
cipher suites 9
The PLAIN mechanism is an optional part of this specification.
However if it is implemented the following rules apply:
Rules Section
----- -------
MUST NOT use PLAIN unless strong encryption active
or backwards compatibility dictates otherwise 6,9
MUST use UTF-8 encoding for characters in PLAIN 6
Newman Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 2595 Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP June 1999
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). 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
English.
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
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Newman Standards Track [Page 15]

1291
docs/rfcs/rfc2683.txt Normal file
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

4427
docs/rfcs/rfc2821.txt Normal file
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

451
docs/rfcs/rfc2971.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,451 @@
Network Working Group T. Showalter
Request for Comments: 2971 Mirapoint, Inc.
Category: Standards Track October 2000
IMAP4 ID extension
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
The ID extension to the Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
4rev1 (IMAP4rev1) protocol allows the server and client to exchange
identification information on their implementation in order to make
bug reports and usage statistics more complete.
1. Introduction
The IMAP4rev1 protocol described in [IMAP4rev1] provides a method for
accessing remote mail stores, but it provides no facility to
advertise what program a client or server uses to provide service.
This makes it difficult for implementors to get complete bug reports
from users, as it is frequently difficult to know what client or
server is in use.
Additionally, some sites may wish to assemble usage statistics based
on what clients are used, but in an an environment where users are
permitted to obtain and maintain their own clients this is difficult
to accomplish.
The ID command provides a facility to advertise information on what
programs are being used along with contact information (should bugs
ever occur).
Showalter Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2971 IMAP4 ID extension October 2000
2. Conventions Used in this Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].
The conventions used in this document are the same as specified in
[IMAP4rev1]. In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the
client and server respectively. Line breaks have been inserted for
readability.
3. Specification
The sole purpose of the ID extension is to enable clients and servers
to exchange information on their implementations for the purposes of
statistical analysis and problem determination.
This information is be submitted to a server by any client wishing to
provide information for statistical purposes, provided the server
advertises its willingness to take the information with the atom "ID"
included in the list of capabilities returned by the CAPABILITY
command.
Implementations MUST NOT make operational changes based on the data
sent as part of the ID command or response. The ID command is for
human consumption only, and is not to be used in improving the
performance of clients or servers.
This includes, but is not limited to, the following:
Servers MUST NOT attempt to work around client bugs by using
information from the ID command. Clients MUST NOT attempt to work
around server bugs based on the ID response.
Servers MUST NOT provide features to a client or otherwise
optimize for a particular client by using information from the ID
command. Clients MUST NOT provide features to a server or
otherwise optimize for a particular server based on the ID
response.
Servers MUST NOT deny access to or refuse service for a client
based on information from the ID command. Clients MUST NOT refuse
to operate or limit their operation with a server based on the ID
response.
Showalter Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2971 IMAP4 ID extension October 2000
Rationale: It is imperative that this extension not supplant IMAP's
CAPABILITY mechanism with a ad-hoc approach where implementations
guess each other's features based on who they claim to be.
Implementations MUST NOT send false information in an ID command.
Implementations MAY send less information than they have available or
no information at all. Such behavior may be useful to preserve user
privacy. See Security Considerations, section 7.
3.1. ID Command
Arguments: client parameter list or NIL
Responses: OPTIONAL untagged response: ID
Result: OK identification information accepted
BAD command unknown or arguments invalid
Implementation identification information is sent by the client with
the ID command.
This command is valid in any state.
The information sent is in the form of a list of field/value pairs.
Fields are permitted to be any IMAP4 string, and values are permitted
to be any IMAP4 string or NIL. A value of NIL indicates that the
client can not or will not specify this information. The client may
also send NIL instead of the list, indicating that it wants to send
no information, but would still accept a server response.
The available fields are defined in section 3.3.
Example: C: a023 ID ("name" "sodr" "version" "19.34" "vendor"
"Pink Floyd Music Limited")
S: * ID NIL
S: a023 OK ID completed
3.2. ID Response
Contents: server parameter list
In response to an ID command issued by the client, the server replies
with a tagged response containing information on its implementation.
The format is the same as the client list.
Showalter Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 2971 IMAP4 ID extension October 2000
Example: C: a042 ID NIL
S: * ID ("name" "Cyrus" "version" "1.5" "os" "sunos"
"os-version" "5.5" "support-url"
"mailto:cyrus-bugs+@andrew.cmu.edu")
S: a042 OK ID command completed
A server MUST send a tagged ID response to an ID command. However, a
server MAY send NIL in place of the list.
3.3. Defined Field Values
Any string may be sent as a field, but the following are defined to
describe certain values that might be sent. Implementations are free
to send none, any, or all of these. Strings are not case-sensitive.
Field strings MUST NOT be longer than 30 octets. Value strings MUST
NOT be longer than 1024 octets. Implementations MUST NOT send more
than 30 field-value pairs.
name Name of the program
version Version number of the program
os Name of the operating system
os-version Version of the operating system
vendor Vendor of the client/server
support-url URL to contact for support
address Postal address of contact/vendor
date Date program was released, specified as a date-time
in IMAP4rev1
command Command used to start the program
arguments Arguments supplied on the command line, if any
if any
environment Description of environment, i.e., UNIX environment
variables or Windows registry settings
Implementations MUST NOT use contact information to submit automatic
bug reports. Implementations may include information from an ID
response in a report automatically prepared, but are prohibited from
sending the report without user authorization.
It is preferable to find the name and version of the underlying
operating system at runtime in cases where this is possible.
Information sent via an ID response may violate user privacy. See
Security Considerations, section 7.
Implementations MUST NOT send the same field name more than once.
Showalter Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 2971 IMAP4 ID extension October 2000
4. Formal Syntax
This syntax is intended to augment the grammar specified in
[IMAP4rev1] in order to provide for the ID command. This
specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur Form (BNF) notation as
used in [IMAP4rev1].
command_any ::= "CAPABILITY" / "LOGOUT" / "NOOP" / x_command / id
;; adds id command to command_any in [IMAP4rev1]
id ::= "ID" SPACE id_params_list
id_response ::= "ID" SPACE id_params_list
id_params_list ::= "(" #(string SPACE nstring) ")" / nil
;; list of field value pairs
response_data ::= "*" SPACE (resp_cond_state / resp_cond_bye /
mailbox_data / message_data / capability_data / id_response)
5. Use of the ID extension with Firewalls and Other Intermediaries
There exist proxies, firewalls, and other intermediary systems that
can intercept an IMAP session and make changes to the data exchanged
in the session. Such intermediaries are not anticipated by the IMAP4
protocol design and are not within the scope of the IMAP4 standard.
However, in order for the ID command to be useful in the presence of
such intermediaries, those intermediaries need to take special note
of the ID command and response. In particular, if an intermediary
changes any part of the IMAP session it must also change the ID
command to advertise its presence.
A firewall MAY act to block transmission of specific information
fields in the ID command and response that it believes reveal
information that could expose a security vulnerability. However, a
firewall SHOULD NOT disable the extension, when present, entirely,
and SHOULD NOT unconditionally remove either the client or server
list.
Finally, it should be noted that a firewall, when handling a
CAPABILITY response, MUST NOT allow the names of extensions to be
returned to the client that the firewall has no knowledge of.
Showalter Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 2971 IMAP4 ID extension October 2000
6. References
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[IMAP4rev1] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
4rev1", RFC 2060, October 1996.
[RFC-822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet
Text Messages", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.
7. Security Considerations
This extension has the danger of violating the privacy of users if
misused. Clients and servers should notify users that they implement
and enable the ID command.
It is highly desirable that implementations provide a method of
disabling ID support, perhaps by not sending ID at all, or by sending
NIL as the argument to the ID command or response.
Implementors must exercise extreme care in adding fields sent as part
of an ID command or response. Some fields, including a processor ID
number, Ethernet address, or other unique (or mostly unique)
identifier allow tracking of users in ways that violate user privacy
expectations.
Having implementation information of a given client or server may
make it easier for an attacker to gain unauthorized access due to
security holes.
Since this command includes arbitrary data and does not require the
user to authenticate, server implementations are cautioned to guard
against an attacker sending arbitrary garbage data in order to fill
up the ID log. In particular, if a server naively logs each ID
command to disk without inspecting it, an attacker can simply fire up
thousands of connections and send a few kilobytes of random data.
Servers have to guard against this. Methods include truncating
abnormally large responses; collating responses by storing only a
single copy, then keeping a counter of the number of times that
response has been seen; keeping only particularly interesting parts
of responses; and only logging responses of users who actually log
in.
Security is affected by firewalls which modify the IMAP protocol
stream; see section 5, Use of the ID Extension with Firewalls and
Other Intermediaries, for more information.
Showalter Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 2971 IMAP4 ID extension October 2000
8. Author's Address
Tim Showalter
Mirapoint, Inc.
909 Hermosa Ct.
Sunnyvale, CA 94095
EMail: tjs@mirapoint.com
Showalter Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 2971 IMAP4 ID extension October 2000
9. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). 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
English.
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
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Showalter Standards Track [Page 8]

2019
docs/rfcs/rfc3028.txt Normal file
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

339
docs/rfcs/rfc3348.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,339 @@
Network Working Group M. Gahrns
Request for Comments: 3348 R. Cheng
Category: Informational Microsoft
July 2002
The Internet Message Action Protocol (IMAP4)
Child Mailbox Extension
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
The Internet Message Action Protocol (IMAP4) CHILDREN extension
provides a mechanism for a client to efficiently determine if a
particular mailbox has children, without issuing a LIST "" * or a
LIST "" % for each mailbox.
1. Conventions used in this document
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server respectively. If such lines are wrapped without a new "C:" or
"S:" label, then the wrapping is for editorial clarity and is not
part of the command.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC-2119].
2. Introduction and Overview
Many IMAP4 [RFC-2060] clients present to the user a hierarchical view
of the mailboxes that a user has access to. Rather than initially
presenting to the user the entire mailbox hierarchy, it is often
preferable to show to the user a collapsed outline list of the
mailbox hierarchy (particularly if there is a large number of
mailboxes). The user can then expand the collapsed outline hierarchy
as needed. It is common to include within the collapsed hierarchy a
Gahrns, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 3348 IMAP4 Child Mailbox Extension July 2002
visual clue (such as a "+") to indicate that there are child
mailboxes under a particular mailbox. When the visual clue is
clicked the hierarchy list is expanded to show the child mailboxes.
Several IMAP vendors implemented this proposal, and it is proposed to
document this behavior and functionality as an Informational RFC.
There is interest in addressing the general extensibility of the IMAP
LIST command through an IMAP LIST Extension draft. Similar
functionality to the \HasChildren and \HasNoChildren flags could be
incorporated into this new LIST Extension. It is proposed that the
more general LIST Extension draft proceed on the standards track with
this proposal being relegated to informational status only.
If the functionality of the \HasChildren and \HasNoChildren flags
were incorporated into a more general LIST extension, this would have
the advantage that a client could then have the opportunity to
request whether or not the server should return this information.
This would be an advantage over the current draft for servers where
this information is expensive to compute, since the server would only
need to compute the information when it knew that the client
requesting the information was able to consume it.
3. Requirements
IMAP4 servers that support this extension MUST list the keyword
CHILDREN in their CAPABILITY response.
The CHILDREN extension defines two new attributes that MAY be
returned within a LIST response.
\HasChildren - The presence of this attribute indicates that the
mailbox has child mailboxes.
Servers SHOULD NOT return \HasChildren if child mailboxes exist, but
none will be displayed to the current user in a LIST response (as
should be the case where child mailboxes exist, but a client does not
have permissions to access them.) In this case, \HasNoChildren
SHOULD be used.
In many cases, however, a server may not be able to efficiently
compute whether a user has access to all child mailboxes, or multiple
users may be accessing the same account and simultaneously changing
the mailbox hierarchy. As such a client MUST be prepared to accept
the \HasChildren attribute as a hint. That is, a mailbox MAY be
flagged with the \HasChildren attribute, but no child mailboxes will
appear in a subsequent LIST response.
Gahrns, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 3348 IMAP4 Child Mailbox Extension July 2002
Example 3.1:
============
/*** Consider a server that has the following mailbox hierarchy:
INBOX
ITEM_1
ITEM_1A
ITEM_2
TOP_SECRET
Where INBOX, ITEM_1 and ITEM_2 are top level mailboxes. ITEM_1A is a
child mailbox of ITEM_1 and TOP_SECRET is a child mailbox of ITEM_2
that the currently logged on user does NOT have access to.
Note that in this case, the server is not able to efficiently compute
access rights to child mailboxes and responds with a \HasChildren
attribute for mailbox ITEM_2, even though ITEM_2/TOP_SECRET does not
appear in the list response. ***/
C: A001 LIST "" *
S: * LIST (\HasNoChildren) "/" INBOX
S: * LIST (\HasChildren) "/" ITEM_1
S: * LIST (\HasNoChildren) "/" ITEM_1/ITEM_1A
S: * LIST (\HasChildren) "/" ITEM_2
S: A001 OK LIST Completed
\HasNoChildren - The presence of this attribute indicates that the
mailbox has NO child mailboxes that are accessible to the currently
authenticated user. If a mailbox has the \Noinferiors attribute, the
\HasNoChildren attribute is redundant and SHOULD be omitted in the
LIST response.
In some instances a server that supports the CHILDREN extension MAY
NOT be able to determine whether a mailbox has children. For example
it may have difficulty determining whether there are child mailboxes
when LISTing mailboxes while operating in a particular namespace.
In these cases, a server MAY exclude both the \HasChildren and
\HasNoChildren attributes in the LIST response. As such, a client
can not make any assumptions about whether a mailbox has children
based upon the absence of a single attribute.
It is an error for the server to return both a \HasChildren and a
\HasNoChildren attribute in a LIST response.
Gahrns, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 3348 IMAP4 Child Mailbox Extension July 2002
It is an error for the server to return both a \HasChildren and a
\NoInferiors attribute in a LIST response.
Note: the \HasNoChildren attribute should not be confused with the
IMAP4 [RFC-2060] defined attribute \Noinferiors which indicates that
no child mailboxes exist now and none can be created in the future.
The \HasChildren and \HasNoChildren attributes might not be returned
in response to a LSUB response. Many servers maintain a simple
mailbox subscription list that is not updated when the underlying
mailbox structure is changed. A client MUST NOT assume that
hierarchy information will be maintained in the subscription list.
RLIST is a command defined in [RFC-2193] that includes in a LIST
response mailboxes that are accessible only via referral. That is, a
client must explicitly issue an RLIST command to see a list of these
mailboxes. Thus in the case where a mailbox has child mailboxes that
are available only via referral, the mailboxes would appear as
\HasNoChildren in response to the LIST command, and \HasChildren in
response to the RLIST command.
5. Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur
Form (BNF) as described in [ABNF].
Two new mailbox attributes are defined as flag_extensions to the
IMAP4 mailbox_list response:
HasChildren = "\HasChildren"
HasNoChildren = "\HasNoChildren"
6. Security Considerations
This extension provides a client a more efficient means of
determining whether a particular mailbox has children. If a mailbox
has children, but the currently authenticated user does not have
access to any of them, the server SHOULD respond with a
\HasNoChildren attribute. In many cases, however, a server may not
be able to efficiently compute whether a user has access to all child
mailboxes. If such a server responds with a \HasChildren attribute,
when in fact the currently authenticated user does not have access to
any child mailboxes, potentially more information is conveyed about
the mailbox than intended. A server designed with such levels of
security in mind SHOULD NOT attach the \HasChildren attribute to a
mailbox unless the server is certain that the user has access to at
least one of the child mailboxes.
Gahrns, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 3348 IMAP4 Child Mailbox Extension July 2002
7. References
[RFC-2060] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
4rev1", RFC 2060, December 1996.
[RFC-2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC-2234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, Editors, "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
[RFC-2193] Gahrns, M., "IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals", RFC 2193, September
1997.
8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the participants of several IMC Mail
Connect events for their input when this idea was originally
presented and refined.
9. Author's Address
Mike Gahrns
Microsoft
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA, 98052
Phone: (425) 936-9833
EMail: mikega@microsoft.com
Raymond Cheng
Microsoft
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA, 98052
Phone: (425) 703-4913
EMail: raych@microsoft.com
Gahrns, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 3348 IMAP4 Child Mailbox Extension July 2002
10. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). 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
English.
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
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Gahrns, et al. Informational [Page 6]

6051
docs/rfcs/rfc3501.txt Normal file
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

395
docs/rfcs/rfc3502.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,395 @@
Network Working Group M. Crispin
Request for Comments: 3502 University of Washington
Category: Standards Track March 2003
Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - MULTIAPPEND Extension
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes the multiappending extension to the Internet
Message Access Protocol (IMAP) (RFC 3501). This extension provides
substantial performance improvements for IMAP clients which upload
multiple messages at a time to a mailbox on the server.
A server which supports this extension indicates this with a
capability name of "MULTIAPPEND".
Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to
be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].
Introduction
The MULTIAPPEND extension permits uploading of multiple messages with
a single command. When used in conjunction with the [LITERAL+]
extension, the entire upload is accomplished in a single
command/response round trip.
A MULTIAPPEND APPEND operation is atomic; either all messages are
successfully appended, or no messages are appended.
In the base IMAP specification, each message must be appended in a
separate command, and there is no mechanism to "unappend" messages if
an error occurs while appending. Also, some mail stores may require
Crispin Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3502 IMAP MULTIAPPEND March 2003
an expensive "open/lock + sync/unlock/close" operation as part of
appending; this can be quite expensive if it must be done on a
per-message basis.
If the server supports both LITERAL+ and pipelining but not
MULTIAPPEND, it may be possible to get some of the performance
advantages of MULTIAPPEND by doing a pipelined "batch" append.
However, it will not work as well as MULTIAPPEND for the following
reasons:
1) Multiple APPEND commands, even as part of a pipelined batch,
are non-atomic by definition. There is no way to revert the
mailbox to the state before the batch append in the event of an
error.
2) It may not be feasible for the server to coalesce pipelined
APPEND operations so as to avoid the "open/lock +
sync/unlock/close" overhead described above. In any case, such
coalescing would be timing dependent and thus potentially
unreliable. In particular, with traditional UNIX mailbox files,
it is assumed that a lock is held only for a single atomic
operation, and many applications disregard any lock that is
older than 5 minutes.
3) If an error occurs, depending upon the nature of the error,
it is possible for additional messages to be appended after the
error. For example, the user wants to append 5 messages, but a
disk quota error occurs with the third message because of its
size. However, the fourth and fifth messages have already been
sent in the pipeline, so the mailbox ends up with the first,
second, fourth, and fifth messages of the batch appended.
6.3.11. APPEND Command
Arguments: mailbox name
one or more messages to upload, specified as:
OPTIONAL flag parenthesized list
OPTIONAL date/time string
message literal
Data: no specific responses for this command
Result: OK - append completed
NO - append error: can't append to that mailbox, error
in flags or date/time or message text,
append cancelled
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
Crispin Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3502 IMAP MULTIAPPEND March 2003
The APPEND command appends the literal arguments as new messages
to the end of the specified destination mailbox. This argument
SHOULD be in the format of an [RFC-2822] message. 8-bit
characters are permitted in the message. A server implementation
that is unable to preserve 8-bit data properly MUST be able to
reversibly convert 8-bit APPEND data to 7-bit using a [MIME-IMB]
content transfer encoding.
Note: There MAY be exceptions, e.g., draft messages, in
which required [RFC-2822] header lines are omitted in the
message literal argument to APPEND. The full implications
of doing so MUST be understood and carefully weighed.
If a flag parenthesized list is specified, the flags SHOULD be set
in the resulting message; otherwise, the flag list of the
resulting message is set empty by default.
If a date-time is specified, the internal date SHOULD be set in
the resulting message; otherwise, the internal date of the
resulting message is set to the current date and time by default.
A zero-length message literal argument is an error, and MUST
return a NO. This can be used to cancel the append.
If the append is unsuccessful for any reason (including being
cancelled), the mailbox MUST be restored to its state before the
APPEND attempt; no partial appending is permitted. The server MAY
return an error before processing all the message arguments.
If the destination mailbox does not exist, a server MUST return an
error, and MUST NOT automatically create the mailbox. Unless it
is certain that the destination mailbox can not be created, the
server MUST send the response code "[TRYCREATE]" as the prefix of
the text of the tagged NO response. This gives a hint to the
client that it can attempt a CREATE command and retry the APPEND
if the CREATE is successful.
If the mailbox is currently selected, the normal new message
actions SHOULD occur. Specifically, the server SHOULD notify the
client immediately via an untagged EXISTS response. If the server
does not do so, the client MAY issue a NOOP command (or failing
that, a CHECK command) after one or more APPEND commands.
Crispin Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3502 IMAP MULTIAPPEND March 2003
Example: C: A003 APPEND saved-messages (\Seen) {329}
S: + Ready for literal data
C: Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 21:52:25 -0800 (PST)
C: From: Fred Foobar <foobar@Blurdybloop.example.COM>
C: Subject: afternoon meeting
C: To: mooch@owatagu.example.net
C: Message-Id: <B27397-0100000@Blurdybloop.example.COM>
C: MIME-Version: 1.0
C: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
C:
C: Hello Joe, do you think we can meet at 3:30 tomorrow?
C: (\Seen) " 7-Feb-1994 22:43:04 -0800" {295}
S: + Ready for literal data
C: Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 22:43:04 -0800 (PST)
C: From: Joe Mooch <mooch@OWaTaGu.example.net>
C: Subject: Re: afternoon meeting
C: To: foobar@blurdybloop.example.com
C: Message-Id: <a0434793874930@OWaTaGu.example.net>
C: MIME-Version: 1.0
C: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
C:
C: 3:30 is fine with me.
C:
S: A003 OK APPEND completed
C: A004 APPEND bogusname (\Flagged) {1023}
S: A004 NO [TRYCREATE] No such mailbox as bogusname
C: A005 APPEND test (\Flagged) {99}
S: + Ready for literal data
C: Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 22:43:04 -0800 (PST)
C: From: Fred Foobar <fred@example.com>
C: Subject: hmm...
C: {35403}
S: A005 NO APPEND failed: Disk quota exceeded
Note: The APPEND command is not used for message delivery,
because it does not provide a mechanism to transfer [SMTP]
envelope information.
Modification to IMAP4rev1 Base Protocol Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur
Form (ABNF) notation as specified in [ABNF].
append = "APPEND" SP mailbox 1*append-message
append-message = [SP flag-list] [SP date-time] SP literal
Crispin Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3502 IMAP MULTIAPPEND March 2003
MULTIAPPEND Interaction with UIDPLUS Extension
Servers which support both MULTIAPPEND and [UIDPLUS] will have the
"resp-code-apnd" rule modified as follows:
resp-code-apnd = "APPENDUID" SP nz-number SP set
That is, the APPENDUID response code returns as many UIDs as there
were messages appended in the multiple append. The UIDs returned
should be in the order the articles where appended. The message set
may not contain extraneous UIDs or the symbol "*".
Security Considerations
The MULTIAPPEND extension does not raise any security considerations
that are not present in the base [IMAP] protocol, and these issues
are discussed in [IMAP]. Nevertheless, it is important to remember
that IMAP4rev1 protocol transactions, including electronic mail data,
are sent in the clear over the network unless protection from
snooping is negotiated, either by the use of STARTTLS, privacy
protection is negotiated in the AUTHENTICATE command, or some other
protection mechanism is in effect.
Normative References
[ABNF] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
[IMAP] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[MIME-IMB] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "MIME (Multipurpose Internet
Mail Extensions) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[RFC-2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April
2001.
Crispin Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3502 IMAP MULTIAPPEND March 2003
Informative References
[LITERAL+] Myers, J., "IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals", RFC 2088,
January 1997.
[UIDPLUS] Myers, J., "IMAP4 UIDPLUS extension", RFC 2359, June 1988.
[SMTP] Klensin, J., Editor, "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC
2821, April 2001.
Author's Address
Mark R. Crispin
Networks and Distributed Computing
University of Washington
4545 15th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98105-4527
Phone: (206) 543-5762
EMail: MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU
Crispin Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3502 IMAP MULTIAPPEND March 2003
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). 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
English.
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
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Crispin Standards Track [Page 7]

507
docs/rfcs/rfc3503.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,507 @@
Network Working Group A. Melnikov
Request for Comments: 3503 ACI Worldwide/MessagingDirect
Category: Standards Track March 2003
Message Disposition Notification (MDN) profile for
Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP)
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
The Message Disposition Notification (MDN) facility defined in RFC
2298 provides a means by which a message can request that message
processing by the recipient be acknowledged as well as a format to be
used for such acknowledgements. However, it doesn't describe how
multiple Mail User Agents (MUAs) should handle the generation of MDNs
in an Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP4) environment.
This document describes how to handle MDNs in such an environment and
provides guidelines for implementers of IMAP4 that want to add MDN
support to their products.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3503 MDN profile for IMAP March 2003
Table of Contents
1. Conventions Used in this Document............................. 2
2. Introduction and Overview..................................... 2
3. Client behavior............................................... 3
3.1. Client behavior when receiving a message................. 5
3.2. Client behavior when copying a message................... 5
3.3. Client behavior when sending a message................... 5
3.4. Client behavior when saving a temporary message.......... 5
4. Server behavior............................................... 5
4.1. Server that supports arbitrary keywords.................. 5
4.2. Server that supports only $MDNSent keyword............... 5
4.3. Interaction with IMAP ACL extension...................... 6
5. Examples...................................................... 6
6. Security Considerations....................................... 7
7. Formal Syntax................................................. 7
8. Acknowledgments............................................... 7
9. Normative References.......................................... 8
10. Author's Address.............................................. 8
11. Full Copyright Statement...................................... 9
1. Conventions Used in this Document
"C:" and "S:" in examples show lines sent by the client and server
respectively.
The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY" in
this document when typed in uppercase are to be interpreted as
defined in "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"
[KEYWORDS].
2. Introduction and Overview
This memo defines an additional [IMAP4] mailbox keyword that allows
multiple Mail User Agents (MUAs) to know if a requested receipt
notification was sent.
Message Disposition Notification [MDN] does not require any special
support of IMAP in the case where a user has access to the mailstore
from only one computer and is using a single MUA. In this case, the
MUA behaves as described in [MDN], i.e., the MUA performs automatic
processing and generates corresponding MDNs, it performs requested
action and, with the user's permission, sends appropriate MDNs. The
MUA will not send MDN twice because the MUA keeps track of sent
notifications in a local configuration. However, that does not work
when IMAP is used to access the same mailstore from different
locations or is using different MUAs.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3503 MDN profile for IMAP March 2003
This document defines a new special purpose mailbox keyword $MDNSent
that must be used by MUAs. It does not define any new command or
response for IMAP, but describes a technique that MUAs should use to
achieve interoperability.
When a client opens a mailbox for the first time, it verifies that
the server is capable of storing the $MDNSent keyword by examining
the PERMANENTFLAGS response code. In order to support MDN in IMAP, a
server MUST support either the $MDNSent keyword, or arbitrary message
keywords.
3. Client behavior
The use of IMAP requires few additional steps in mail processing on
the client side. The following timeline modifies the timeline found
in Section 4 of [MDN].
-- User composes message.
-- User tells MUA to send message.
-- MUA passes message to MSA (original recipient information passed
along). MUA [optionally] saves message to a folder for sent mail
with $MDNSent flag set.
-- MSA sends message to MTA.
-- Final MTA receives message.
-- Final MTA delivers message to MUA (possibly generating DSN).
-- MUA logs into IMAP server, opens mailbox, verifies if mailbox can
store $MDNSent keyword by examining PERMANENTFLAGS response.
-- MUA performs automatic processing and generates corresponding MDNs
("dispatched", "processed", "deleted", "denied" or "failed"
disposition type with "automatic-action" and "MDN-sent-
automatically" disposition modes) for messages that do not have
$MDNSent keyword, or \Draft flag set. (*)
-- MUA sets the $MDNSent keyword for every message that required an
automatic MDN to be sent, whether or not the MDN was sent.
-- MUA displays a list of messages to user.
-- User selects a message and requests that some action be performed
on it.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3503 MDN profile for IMAP March 2003
-- MUA performs requested action and, with user's permission, sends
appropriate MDN ("displayed", "dispatched", "processed",
"deleted", "denied" or "failed" disposition type with "manual-
action" and "MDN-sent-manually" or "MDN-sent-automatically"
disposition mode). If the generated MDN is saved to a mailbox
with the APPEND command, the client MUST specify the $MDNSent
keyword in the APPEND.
-- MUA sets the $MDNSent keyword for all messages for which the user
confirmed the dispatching of disposition (or was explicitly
prohibited to do so).
-- User possibly performs other actions on message, but no further
MDNs are generated.
(*) Note: MUA MUST NOT use \Recent flag as an indicator that it
should send MDN, because according to [IMAP4], "If multiple
connections have the same mailbox selected simultaneously, it is
undefined which of these connections will see newly-arrived
messages with \Recent set and which will see it without \Recent
set". Thus, using \Recent as an indicator will cause
unpredictable client behavior with different IMAP4 servers.
However, the client MAY use \Seen flag as one of the indicators
that MDN must not be sent. The client MUST NOT use any other
standard flags, like \Draft or \Answered, to indicate that MDN
was previously sent, because they have different well known
meaning. In any case, in the presence of the $MDNSent keyword,
the client MUST ignore all other flags or keywords for the
purpose of generating an MDN and MUST NOT send the MDN.
When the client opens a mailbox for the first time, it must verify
that the server supports the $MDNSent keyword, or arbitrary message
keywords by examining PERMANENTFLAGS response code.
The client MUST NOT try to set the $MDNSent keyword if the server is
incapable of storing it permanently.
The client MUST be prepared to receive NO from the server as the
result of STORE $MDNSent when the server advertises the support of
storing arbitrary keywords, because the server may limit the number
of message keywords it can store in a particular mailbox. A client
SHOULD NOT send MDN if it fails to store the $MDNSent keyword.
Once the $MDNSent keyword is set, it MUST NOT be unset by a client.
The client MAY set the $MDNSent keyword when a user denies sending
the notification. This prohibits all other MUAs from sending MDN for
this message.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3503 MDN profile for IMAP March 2003
3.1. Client behavior when receiving a message
The client MUST NOT send MDN if a message has the $MDNSent keyword
set. It also MUST NOT send MDN if a message has \Draft flag, because
some clients use this flag to mark a message as incomplete.
See the timeline in section 3 for details on client behavior when
receiving a message.
3.2. Client behavior when copying a message
The client SHOULD verify that $MDNSent is preserved on a COPY
operation. Furthermore, when a message is copied between servers
with the APPEND command, the client MUST set the $MDNSent keyword
correctly.
3.3. Client behavior when sending a message
When saving a sent message to any folder, the client MUST set the
$MDNSent keyword to prevent another client from sending MDN for the
message.
3.4. Client behavior when saving a temporary message
When saving an unfinished message to any folder client MUST set
$MDNSent keyword to prevent another client from sending MDN for the
message.
4. Server behavior
Server implementors that want to follow this specification must
insure that their server complies with either section 4.1 or section
4.2. If the server also supports the IMAP [ACL] extension, it MUST
also comply with the section 4.3.
4.1. Server that supports arbitrary keywords
No changes are required from the server to make it compatible with
the extension described in this document if it supports arbitrary
keywords.
4.2. Server that supports only $MDNSent keyword
Servers that support only the $MDNSent keyword MUST preserve it on
the COPY operation. It is also expected that a server that supports
SEARCH <flag> will also support the SEARCH KEYWORD $MDNSent.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3503 MDN profile for IMAP March 2003
4.3. Interaction with IMAP ACL extension
Any server that conforms to either 4.1 or 4.2 and also supports the
IMAP [ACL] extension, SHOULD preserve the $MDNSent keyword on COPY
even if the client does not have 'w' right. This will prevent the
generation of a duplicated MDN for the same message. Note that the
server MUST still check if the client has rights to perform the COPY
operation on a message according to [ACL].
5. Examples
1) MUA opens mailbox for the first time.
a) The server supports storing of arbitrary keywords
C: a100 select INBOX
S: * FLAGS (\Flagged \Draft \Deleted \Seen)
S: * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (\Flagged \Draft \Deleted \Seen \*)]
S: * 5 EXISTS
S: * 3 RECENT
S: * OK [UIDVALIDITY 894294713]
S: a100 OK [READ-WRITE] Completed
b) The server supports storing of the $MDNSent keyword
C: a100 select INBOX
S: * FLAGS (\Flagged \Draft \Deleted \Seen $MDNSent)
S: * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (\Flagged \Draft \Deleted \Seen $MDNSent)]
S: * 5 EXISTS
S: * 3 RECENT
S: * OK [UIDVALIDITY 894294713]
S: a100 OK [READ-WRITE] Completed
2) The MUA successfully sets the $MDNSent keyword
C: a200 STORE 4 +FLAGS ($MDNSent)
S: * 4 FETCH (FLAGS (\Flagged \Seen $MDNSent))
S: * FLAGS ($MDNSent \Flagged \Deleted \Draft \Seen)
S: * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS ($MDNSent \Flagged \Deleted \Draft \Seen \*)]
S: a200 OK STORE completed
3) The server refuses to store the $MDNSent keyword
C: a200 STORE 4 +FLAGS ($MDNSent)
S: a200 NO STORE failed : no space left to store $MDNSent keyword
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3503 MDN profile for IMAP March 2003
4) All clients and servers MUST treat the $MDNSent keyword as case
insensitive in all operations, as stated in [IMAP].
C: a300 FETCH 1:* FLAGS
S: * 1 FETCH (FLAGS (\Seen))
S: * 2 FETCH (FLAGS (\Answered \Seen $MdnSENt))
S: * 3 FETCH (FLAGS ())
S: * 4 FETCH (FLAGS (\Flagged \Seen $MdnSENT))
S: * 5 FETCH (FLAGS ($MDNSent))
S: * 6 FETCH (FLAGS (\Recent))
S: a300 OK FETCH completed
C: a400 SEARCH KEYWORDS $mdnsent
S: * SEARCH 2 4 5
S: a400 OK SEARCH completed
6. Security Considerations
There are no known security issues with this extension, not found in
[MDN] and/or [IMAP4].
Section 4.3 changes ACL checking requirements on an IMAP server that
implements IMAP [ACL] extension.
7. Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur
Form (BNF) notation as specified in [RFC-822], as modified by
[IMAP4]. Non-terminals referenced, but not defined below, are as
defined by [IMAP4].
Except as noted otherwise, all alphabetic characters are case-
insensitive. The use of upper or lower case characters to define
token strings is for editorial clarity only. Implementations MUST
accept these strings in a case-insensitive fashion.
flag_keyword ::= "$MDNSent" / other_keywords
other_keywords ::= atom
8. Acknowledgments
This document is the product of discussions that took place on the
IMAP mailing list. Special gratitude to Cyrus Daboo and Randall
Gellens for reviewing the document.
Thank you to my father who as he has helped to make me what I am. I
miss you terribly.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 3503 MDN profile for IMAP March 2003
9. Normative References
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[MDN] Fajman, R., "An Extensible Message Format for Message
Disposition Notifications", RFC 2298, March 1998.
[IMAP4] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
[ACL] Myers, J., "IMAP4 ACL extension", RFC 2086, January 1997.
10. Author's Address
Alexey Melnikov
ACI Worldwide/MessagingDirect
59 Clarendon Road
Watford, Hertfordshire
United Kingdom, WD17 1FQ
Phone: +44 1923 81 2877
EMail: mel@messagingdirect.com
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 3503 MDN profile for IMAP March 2003
11. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). 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
English.
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
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 9]

451
docs/rfcs/rfc3516.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,451 @@
Network Working Group L. Nerenberg
Request for Comments: 3516 Orthanc Systems
Category: Standards Track April 2003
IMAP4 Binary Content Extension
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This memo defines the Binary extension to the Internet Message Access
Protocol (IMAP4). It provides a mechanism for IMAP4 clients and
servers to exchange message body data without using a MIME content-
transfer-encoding.
1. Conventions Used in this Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY"
in this document are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORD].
The abbreviation "CTE" means content-transfer-encoding.
2. Introduction
The MIME extensions to Internet messaging allow for the transmission
of non-textual (binary) message content [MIME-IMB]. Since the
traditional transports for messaging are not always capable of
passing binary data transparently, MIME provides encoding schemes
that allow binary content to be transmitted over transports that are
not otherwise able to do so.
The overhead of MIME-encoding this content can be considerable in
some contexts (e.g., slow radio links, streaming multimedia).
Reducing the overhead associated with CTE schemes such as base64
Nerenberg Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3516 IMAP4 Binary Content Extension April 2003
can give a noticeable reduction in resource consumption. The Binary
extension lets the server perform CTE decoding prior to transmitting
message data to the client.
3. Content-Transfer-Encoding Considerations
Every IMAP4 body section has a MIME content-transfer-encoding.
(Those without an explicit Content-Transfer-Encoding header are
implicitly labeled as "7bit" content.) In the terminology of [MIME-
IMB], the CTE specifies both a decoding algorithm and the domain of
the decoded data. In this memo, "decoding" refers to the CTE
decoding step described in [MIME-IMB].
Certain CTEs use an identity encoding transformation. For these CTEs
there is no decoding required, however the domain of the underlying
data may not be expressible in the IMAP4 protocol (e.g., MIME
"binary" content containing NUL octets). To accommodate these cases
the Binary extension introduces a new type of literal protocol
element that is fully eight bit transparent.
Thus, server processing of the FETCH BINARY command involves two
logical steps:
1) perform any CTE-related decoding
2) determine the domain of the decoded data
Step 2 is necessary to determine which protocol element should be
used to transmit the decoded data. (See FETCH Response Extensions
for further details.)
4. Framework for the IMAP4 Binary Extension
This memo defines the following extensions to [IMAP4rev1].
4.1. CAPABILITY Identification
IMAP4 servers that support this extension MUST include "BINARY" in
the response list to the CAPABILITY command.
4.2. FETCH Command Extensions
This extension defines three new FETCH command data items.
BINARY<section-binary>[<partial>]
Requests that the specified section be transmitted after
performing CTE-related decoding.
Nerenberg Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3516 IMAP4 Binary Content Extension April 2003
The <partial> argument, if present, requests that a subset of
the data be returned. The semantics of a partial FETCH BINARY
command are the same as for a partial FETCH BODY command, with
the exception that the <partial> arguments refer to the DECODED
section data.
BINARY.PEEK<section-binary>[<partial>]
An alternate form of FETCH BINARY that does not implicitly set
the \Seen flag.
BINARY.SIZE<section-binary>
Requests the decoded size of the section (i.e., the size to
expect in response to the corresponding FETCH BINARY request).
Note: client authors are cautioned that this might be an
expensive operation for some server implementations.
Needlessly issuing this request could result in degraded
performance due to servers having to calculate the value every
time the request is issued.
4.3. FETCH Response Extensions
This extension defines two new FETCH response data items.
BINARY<section-binary>[<<number>>]
An <nstring> or <literal8> expressing the content of the
specified section after removing any CTE-related encoding. If
<number> is present it refers to the offset within the DECODED
section data.
If the domain of the decoded data is "8bit" and the data does
not contain the NUL octet, the server SHOULD return the data in
a <string> instead of a <literal8>; this allows the client to
determine if the "8bit" data contains the NUL octet without
having to explicitly scan the data stream for for NULs.
If the server does not know how to decode the section's CTE, it
MUST fail the request and issue a "NO" response that contains
the "UNKNOWN-CTE" extended response code.
Nerenberg Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3516 IMAP4 Binary Content Extension April 2003
BINARY.SIZE<section-binary>
The size of the section after removing any CTE-related
encoding. The value returned MUST match the size of the
<nstring> or <literal8> that will be returned by the
corresponding FETCH BINARY request.
If the server does not know how to decode the section's CTE, it
MUST fail the request and issue a "NO" response that contains
the "UNKNOWN-CTE" extended response code.
4.4. APPEND Command Extensions
The APPEND command is extended to allow the client to append data
containing NULs by using the <literal8> syntax. The server MAY
modify the CTE of the appended data, however any such transformation
MUST NOT result in a loss of data.
If the destination mailbox does not support the storage of binary
content, the server MUST fail the request and issue a "NO" response
that contains the "UNKNOWN-CTE" extended response code.
5. MIME Encoded Headers
[MIME-MHE] defines an encoding that allows for non-US-ASCII text in
message headers. This encoding is not the same as the content-
transfer-encoding applied to message bodies, and the decoding
transformations described in this memo do not apply to [MIME-MHE]
encoded header text. A server MUST NOT perform any conversion of
[MIME-MHE] encoded header text in response to any binary FETCH or
APPEND request.
6. Implementation Considerations
Messaging clients and servers have been notoriously lax in their
adherence to the Internet CRLF convention for terminating lines of
textual data in Internet protocols. When sending data using the
Binary extension, servers MUST ensure that textual line-oriented
sections are always transmitted using the IMAP4 CRLF line termination
syntax, regardless of the underlying storage representation of the
data on the server.
A server may choose to store message body binary content in a non-
encoded format. Regardless of the internal storage representation
used, the server MUST issue BODYSTRUCTURE responses that describe the
message as though the binary-encoded sections are encoded in a CTE
Nerenberg Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3516 IMAP4 Binary Content Extension April 2003
acceptable to the IMAP4 base specification. Furthermore, the results
of a FETCH BODY MUST return the message body content in the format
described by the corresponding FETCH BODYSTRUCTURE response.
While the server is allowed to modify the CTE of APPENDed <literal8>
data, this should only be done when it is absolutely necessary.
Gratuitous encoding changes will render useless most cryptographic
operations that have been performed on the message.
This extension provides an optimization that is useful in certain
specific situations. It does not absolve clients from providing
basic functionality (content transfer decoding) that should be
available in all messaging clients. Clients supporting this
extension SHOULD be prepared to perform their own CTE decoding
operations.
7. Formal Protocol Syntax
The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur
Form (ABNF) notation as used in [ABNF], and incorporates by reference
the Core Rules defined in that document.
This syntax augments the grammar specified in [IMAP4rev1].
append =/ "APPEND" SP mailbox [SP flag-list]
[SP date-time] SP literal8
fetch-att =/ "BINARY" [".PEEK"] section-binary [partial]
/ "BINARY.SIZE" section-binary
literal8 = "~{" number "}" CRLF *OCTET
; <number> represents the number of OCTETs
; in the response string.
msg-att-static =/ "BINARY" section-binary SP (nstring / literal8)
/ "BINARY.SIZE" section-binary SP number
partial = "<" number "." nz-number ">"
resp-text-code =/ "UNKNOWN-CTE"
section-binary = "[" [section-part] "]"
Nerenberg Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3516 IMAP4 Binary Content Extension April 2003
8. Normative References
[ABNF] Crocker, D., Editor, and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
[IMAP4rev1] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol Version
4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
[KEYWORD] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[MIME-IMB] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
[MIME-MHE] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII
Text", RFC 2047, November 1996.
9. Security Considerations
There are no known additional security issues with this extension
beyond those described in the base protocol described in [IMAP4rev1].
10. Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Nerenberg Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3516 IMAP4 Binary Content Extension April 2003
11. Author's Address
Lyndon Nerenberg
Orthanc Systems
1606 - 10770 Winterburn Road
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada T5S 1T6
EMail: lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca
Nerenberg Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 3516 IMAP4 Binary Content Extension April 2003
12. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). 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
English.
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
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Nerenberg Standards Track [Page 8]

1067
docs/rfcs/rfc3656.txt Normal file
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

283
docs/rfcs/rfc3691.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
Network Working Group A. Melnikov
Request for Comments: 3691 Isode Ltd.
Category: Standards Track February 2004
Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) UNSELECT command
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document defines an UNSELECT command that can be used to close
the current mailbox in an Internet Message Access Protocol - version
4 (IMAP4) session without expunging it. Certain types of IMAP
clients need to release resources associated with the selected
mailbox without selecting a different mailbox. While IMAP4 provides
this functionality (via a SELECT command with a nonexistent mailbox
name or reselecting the same mailbox with EXAMINE command), a more
clean solution is desirable.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. UNSELECT command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Formal Syntax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3691 IMAP UNSELECT command February 2004
1. Introduction
Certain types of IMAP clients need to release resources associated
with the selected mailbox without selecting a different mailbox.
While [IMAP4] provides this functionality (via a SELECT command with
a nonexistent mailbox name or reselecting the same mailbox with
EXAMINE command), a more clean solution is desirable.
[IMAP4] defines the CLOSE command that closes the selected mailbox as
well as permanently removes all messages with the \Deleted flag set.
However [IMAP4] lacks a command that simply closes the mailbox
without expunging it. This document defines the UNSELECT command for
this purpose.
A server which supports this extension indicates this with a
capability name of "UNSELECT".
"C:" and "S:" in examples show lines sent by the client and server
respectively.
The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY" in
this document when typed in uppercase are to be interpreted as
defined in "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"
[KEYWORDS].
2. UNSELECT Command
Arguments: none
Responses: no specific responses for this command
Result: OK - unselect completed, now in authenticated state
BAD - no mailbox selected, or argument supplied but
none permitted
The UNSELECT command frees server's resources associated with the
selected mailbox and returns the server to the authenticated
state. This command performs the same actions as CLOSE, except
that no messages are permanently removed from the currently
selected mailbox.
Example: C: A341 UNSELECT
S: A341 OK Unselect completed
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3691 IMAP UNSELECT command February 2004
3. Security Considerations
It is believed that this extension doesn't raise any additional
security concerns not already discussed in [IMAP4].
4. Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur
Form (ABNF) notation as specified in [ABNF]. Non-terminals
referenced but not defined below are as defined by [IMAP4].
Except as noted otherwise, all alphabetic characters are case-
insensitive. The use of upper or lower case characters to define
token strings is for editorial clarity only. Implementations MUST
accept these strings in a case-insensitive fashion.
command-select /= "UNSELECT"
5. IANA Considerations
IMAP4 capabilities are registered by publishing a standards track or
IESG approved experimental RFC. The registry is currently located
at:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-capabilities
This document defines the UNSELECT IMAP capabilities. IANA has added
this capability to the registry.
6. Acknowledgments
UNSELECT command was originally implemented by Tim Showalter in Cyrus
IMAP server.
Also, the author of the document would like to thank Vladimir Butenko
and Mark Crispin for reminding that UNSELECT has to be documented.
Also thanks to Simon Josefsson for pointing out that there are
multiple ways to implement UNSELECT.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3691 IMAP UNSELECT command February 2004
7. Normative References
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[IMAP4] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
[ABNF] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
8. Author's Address
Alexey Melnikov
Isode Limited
5 Castle Business Village
Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2BX
EMail: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com
URI: http://www.melnikov.ca/
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3691 IMAP UNSELECT command February 2004
9. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in this document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to
rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required
to implement this standard. Please address the information to the
IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 5]

1515
docs/rfcs/rfc4314.txt Normal file
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

451
docs/rfcs/rfc4315.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,451 @@
Network Working Group M. Crispin
Request for Comments: 4315 December 2005
Obsoletes: 2359
Category: Standards Track
Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - UIDPLUS extension
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
The UIDPLUS extension of the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP)
provides a set of features intended to reduce the amount of time and
resources used by some client operations. The features in UIDPLUS
are primarily intended for disconnected-use clients.
1. Introduction and Overview
The UIDPLUS extension is present in any IMAP server implementation
that returns "UIDPLUS" as one of the supported capabilities to the
CAPABILITY command.
The UIDPLUS extension defines an additional command. In addition,
this document recommends new status response codes in IMAP that
SHOULD be returned by all server implementations, regardless of
whether or not the UIDPLUS extension is implemented.
The added facilities of the features in UIDPLUS are optimizations;
clients can provide equivalent functionality, albeit less
efficiently, by using facilities in the base protocol.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server, respectively.
Crispin Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4315 IMAP - UIDPLUS Extension December 2005
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to
be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].
A "UID set" is similar to the [IMAP] sequence set; however, the "*"
value for a sequence number is not permitted.
2. Additional Commands
The following command definition is an extension to [IMAP] section
6.4.
2.1. UID EXPUNGE Command
Arguments: sequence set
Data: untagged responses: EXPUNGE
Result: OK - expunge completed
NO - expunge failure (e.g., permission denied)
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The UID EXPUNGE command permanently removes all messages that both
have the \Deleted flag set and have a UID that is included in the
specified sequence set from the currently selected mailbox. If a
message either does not have the \Deleted flag set or has a UID
that is not included in the specified sequence set, it is not
affected.
This command is particularly useful for disconnected use clients.
By using UID EXPUNGE instead of EXPUNGE when resynchronizing with
the server, the client can ensure that it does not inadvertantly
remove any messages that have been marked as \Deleted by other
clients between the time that the client was last connected and
the time the client resynchronizes.
If the server does not support the UIDPLUS capability, the client
should fall back to using the STORE command to temporarily remove
the \Deleted flag from messages it does not want to remove, then
issuing the EXPUNGE command. Finally, the client should use the
STORE command to restore the \Deleted flag on the messages in
which it was temporarily removed.
Alternatively, the client may fall back to using just the EXPUNGE
command, risking the unintended removal of some messages.
Crispin Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4315 IMAP - UIDPLUS Extension December 2005
Example: C: A003 UID EXPUNGE 3000:3002
S: * 3 EXPUNGE
S: * 3 EXPUNGE
S: * 3 EXPUNGE
S: A003 OK UID EXPUNGE completed
3. Additional Response Codes
The following response codes are extensions to the response codes
defined in [IMAP] section 7.1. With limited exceptions, discussed
below, server implementations that advertise the UIDPLUS extension
SHOULD return these response codes.
In the case of a mailbox that has permissions set so that the client
can COPY or APPEND to the mailbox, but not SELECT or EXAMINE it, the
server SHOULD NOT send an APPENDUID or COPYUID response code as it
would disclose information about the mailbox.
In the case of a mailbox that has UIDNOTSTICKY status (as defined
below), the server MAY omit the APPENDUID or COPYUID response code as
it is not meaningful.
If the server does not return the APPENDUID or COPYUID response
codes, the client can discover this information by selecting the
destination mailbox. The location of messages placed in the
destination mailbox by COPY or APPEND can be determined by using
FETCH and/or SEARCH commands (e.g., for Message-ID or some unique
marker placed in the message in an APPEND).
APPENDUID
Followed by the UIDVALIDITY of the destination mailbox and the UID
assigned to the appended message in the destination mailbox,
indicates that the message has been appended to the destination
mailbox with that UID.
If the server also supports the [MULTIAPPEND] extension, and if
multiple messages were appended in the APPEND command, then the
second value is a UID set containing the UIDs assigned to the
appended messages, in the order they were transmitted in the
APPEND command. This UID set may not contain extraneous UIDs or
the symbol "*".
Note: the UID set form of the APPENDUID response code MUST NOT
be used if only a single message was appended. In particular,
a server MUST NOT send a range such as 123:123. This is
because a client that does not support [MULTIAPPEND] expects
only a single UID and not a UID set.
Crispin Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4315 IMAP - UIDPLUS Extension December 2005
UIDs are assigned in strictly ascending order in the mailbox
(refer to [IMAP], section 2.3.1.1) and UID ranges are as in
[IMAP]; in particular, note that a range of 12:10 is exactly
equivalent to 10:12 and refers to the sequence 10,11,12.
This response code is returned in a tagged OK response to the
APPEND command.
COPYUID
Followed by the UIDVALIDITY of the destination mailbox, a UID set
containing the UIDs of the message(s) in the source mailbox that
were copied to the destination mailbox and containing the UIDs
assigned to the copied message(s) in the destination mailbox,
indicates that the message(s) have been copied to the destination
mailbox with the stated UID(s).
The source UID set is in the order the message(s) were copied; the
destination UID set corresponds to the source UID set and is in
the same order. Neither of the UID sets may contain extraneous
UIDs or the symbol "*".
UIDs are assigned in strictly ascending order in the mailbox
(refer to [IMAP], section 2.3.1.1) and UID ranges are as in
[IMAP]; in particular, note that a range of 12:10 is exactly
equivalent to 10:12 and refers to the sequence 10,11,12.
This response code is returned in a tagged OK response to the COPY
command.
UIDNOTSTICKY
The selected mailbox is supported by a mail store that does not
support persistent UIDs; that is, UIDVALIDITY will be different
each time the mailbox is selected. Consequently, APPEND or COPY
to this mailbox will not return an APPENDUID or COPYUID response
code.
This response code is returned in an untagged NO response to the
SELECT command.
Note: servers SHOULD NOT have any UIDNOTSTICKY mail stores.
This facility exists to support legacy mail stores in which it
is technically infeasible to support persistent UIDs. This
should be avoided when designing new mail stores.
Crispin Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4315 IMAP - UIDPLUS Extension December 2005
Example: C: A003 APPEND saved-messages (\Seen) {297}
C: Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 21:52:25 -0800 (PST)
C: From: Fred Foobar <foobar@example.com>
C: Subject: afternoon meeting
C: To: mooch@example.com
C: Message-Id: <B27397-0100000@example.com>
C: MIME-Version: 1.0
C: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
C:
C: Hello Joe, do you think we can meet at 3:30 tomorrow?
C:
S: A003 OK [APPENDUID 38505 3955] APPEND completed
C: A004 COPY 2:4 meeting
S: A004 OK [COPYUID 38505 304,319:320 3956:3958] Done
C: A005 UID COPY 305:310 meeting
S: A005 OK No matching messages, so nothing copied
C: A006 COPY 2 funny
S: A006 OK Done
C: A007 SELECT funny
S: * 1 EXISTS
S: * 1 RECENT
S: * OK [UNSEEN 1] Message 1 is first unseen
S: * OK [UIDVALIDITY 3857529045] Validity session-only
S: * OK [UIDNEXT 2] Predicted next UID
S: * NO [UIDNOTSTICKY] Non-persistent UIDs
S: * FLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Deleted \Seen \Draft)
S: * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (\Deleted \Seen)] Limited
S: A007 OK [READ-WRITE] SELECT completed
In this example, A003 and A004 demonstrate successful appending and
copying to a mailbox that returns the UIDs assigned to the messages.
A005 is an example in which no messages were copied; this is because
in A003, we see that message 2 had UID 304, and message 3 had UID
319; therefore, UIDs 305 through 310 do not exist (refer to section
2.3.1.1 of [IMAP] for further explanation). A006 is an example of a
message being copied that did not return a COPYUID; and, as expected,
A007 shows that the mail store containing that mailbox does not
support persistent UIDs.
4. Formal Syntax
Formal syntax is defined using ABNF [ABNF], which extends the ABNF
rules defined in [IMAP]. The IMAP4 ABNF should be imported before
attempting to validate these rules.
append-uid = uniqueid
capability =/ "UIDPLUS"
Crispin Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4315 IMAP - UIDPLUS Extension December 2005
command-select =/ uid-expunge
resp-code-apnd = "APPENDUID" SP nz-number SP append-uid
resp-code-copy = "COPYUID" SP nz-number SP uid-set SP uid-set
resp-text-code =/ resp-code-apnd / resp-code-copy / "UIDNOTSTICKY"
; incorporated before the expansion rule of
; atom [SP 1*<any TEXT-CHAR except "]">]
; that appears in [IMAP]
uid-expunge = "UID" SP "EXPUNGE" SP sequence-set
uid-set = (uniqueid / uid-range) *("," uid-set)
uid-range = (uniqueid ":" uniqueid)
; two uniqueid values and all values
; between these two regards of order.
; Example: 2:4 and 4:2 are equivalent.
Servers that support [MULTIAPPEND] will have the following extension
to the above rules:
append-uid =/ uid-set
; only permitted if client uses [MULTIAPPEND]
; to append multiple messages.
5. Security Considerations
The COPYUID and APPENDUID response codes return information about the
mailbox, which may be considered sensitive if the mailbox has
permissions set that permit the client to COPY or APPEND to the
mailbox, but not SELECT or EXAMINE it.
Consequently, these response codes SHOULD NOT be issued if the client
does not have access to SELECT or EXAMINE the mailbox.
6. IANA Considerations
This document constitutes registration of the UIDPLUS capability in
the imap4-capabilities registry, replacing [RFC2359].
7. Normative References
[ABNF] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
Crispin Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4315 IMAP - UIDPLUS Extension December 2005
[IMAP] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL -
VERSION 4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[MULTIAPPEND] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) -
MULTIAPPEND Extension", RFC 3502, March 2003.
8. Informative References
[RFC2359] Myers, J., "IMAP4 UIDPLUS extension", RFC 2359, June
1998.
9. Changes from RFC 2359
This document obsoletes [RFC2359]. However, it is based upon that
document, and takes substantial text from it (albeit with numerous
clarifications in wording).
[RFC2359] implied that a server must always return COPYUID/APPENDUID
data; thus suggesting that in such cases the server should return
arbitrary data if the destination mailbox did not support persistent
UIDs. This document adds the UIDNOTSTICKY response code to indicate
that a mailbox does not support persistent UIDs, and stipulates that
a UIDPLUS server does not return COPYUID/APPENDUID data when the COPY
(or APPEND) destination mailbox has UIDNOTSTICKY status.
Author's Address
Mark R. Crispin
Networks and Distributed Computing
University of Washington
4545 15th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98105-4527
Phone: (206) 543-5762
EMail: MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU
Crispin Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4315 IMAP - UIDPLUS Extension December 2005
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Crispin Standards Track [Page 8]

955
docs/rfcs/rfc4466.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,955 @@
Network Working Group A. Melnikov
Request for Comments: 4466 Isode Ltd.
Updates: 2088, 2342, 3501, 3502, 3516 C. Daboo
Category: Standards Track April 2006
Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
Over the years, many documents from IMAPEXT and LEMONADE working
groups, as well as many individual documents, have added syntactic
extensions to many base IMAP commands described in RFC 3501. For
ease of reference, this document collects most of such ABNF changes
in one place.
This document also suggests a set of standard patterns for adding
options and extensions to several existing IMAP commands defined in
RFC 3501. The patterns provide for compatibility between existing
and future extensions.
This document updates ABNF in RFCs 2088, 2342, 3501, 3502, and 3516.
It also includes part of the errata to RFC 3501. This document
doesn't specify any semantic changes to the listed RFCs.
Melnikov & Daboo Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4466 Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF April 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Purpose of This Document ...................................2
1.2. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................3
2. IMAP ABNF Extensions ............................................3
2.1. Optional Parameters with the SELECT/EXAMINE Commands .......3
2.2. Extended CREATE Command ....................................4
2.3. Extended RENAME Command ....................................5
2.4. Extensions to FETCH and UID FETCH Commands .................6
2.5. Extensions to STORE and UID STORE Commands .................6
2.6. Extensions to SEARCH Command ...............................7
2.6.1. Extended SEARCH Command .............................7
2.6.2. ESEARCH untagged response ...........................8
2.7. Extensions to APPEND Command ...............................8
3. Formal Syntax ...................................................9
4. Security Considerations ........................................14
5. Normative References ...........................................15
6. Acknowledgements ...............................................15
1. Introduction
1.1. Purpose of This Document
This document serves several purposes:
1. rationalize and generalize ABNF for some existing IMAP
extensions;
2. collect the ABNF in one place in order to minimize cross
references between documents;
3. define building blocks for future extensions so that they can
be used together in a compatible way.
It is expected that a future revision of this document will be
incorporated into a revision of RFC 3501.
This document updates ABNF in RFCs 2088, 2342, 3501, 3502, and 3516.
It also includes part of the errata to RFC 3501. This document
doesn't specify any semantic changes to the listed RFCs.
The ABNF in section 6 of RFC 2342 got rewritten to conform to the
ABNF syntax as defined in RFC 4234 and to reference new non-terminals
from RFC 3501. It was also restructured to allow for better
readability. There were no changes "on the wire".
Section 2 extends ABNF for SELECT, EXAMINE, CREATE, RENAME, FETCH/UID
FETCH, STORE/UID STORE, SEARCH, and APPEND commands in a consistent
manner. Extensions to all the commands but APPEND have the same
Melnikov & Daboo Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4466 Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF April 2006
structure. Extensibility for the APPEND command was done slightly
differently in order to preserve backward compatibility with existing
extensions.
Section 2 also defines a new ESEARCH response, whose purpose is to
define a better version of the SEARCH response defined in RFC 3501.
Section 3 defines the collected ABNF that replaces pieces of ABNF in
the aforementioned RFCs. The collected ABNF got generalized to allow
for easier future extensibility.
1.2. Conventions Used in This Document
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server, respectively.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", and "MAY"
in this document are to be interpreted as defined in "Key words for
use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [KEYWORDS].
2. IMAP ABNF Extensions
This section is not normative. It provides some background on the
intended use of different extensions and it gives some guidance about
how future extensions should extend the described commands.
2.1. Optional Parameters with the SELECT/EXAMINE Commands
This document adds the ability to include one or more parameters with
the IMAP SELECT (section 6.3.1 of [IMAP4]) or EXAMINE (section 6.3.2
of [IMAP4]) commands, to turn on or off certain standard behaviors,
or to add new optional behaviors required for a particular extension.
There are two possible modes of operation:
o A global state change where a single use of the optional parameter
will affect the session state from that time on, irrespective of
subsequent SELECT/EXAMINE commands.
o A per-mailbox state change that will affect the session only for
the duration of the new selected state. A subsequent
SELECT/EXAMINE without the optional parameter will cancel its
effect for the newly selected mailbox.
Optional parameters to the SELECT or EXAMINE commands are added as a
parenthesized list of attribute/value pairs, and appear after the
mailbox name in the standard SELECT or EXAMINE command. The order of
individual parameters is arbitrary. A parameter value is optional
Melnikov & Daboo Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4466 Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF April 2006
and may consist of atoms, strings, or lists in a specific order. If
the parameter value is present, it always appears in parentheses (*).
Any parameter not defined by extensions that the server supports must
be rejected with a BAD response.
Example:
C: a SELECT INBOX (ANNOTATE)
S: ...
S: a OK SELECT complete
In the above example, a single parameter is used with the SELECT
command.
Example:
C: a EXAMINE INBOX (ANNOTATE RESPONSES ("UID Responses")
CONDSTORE)
S: ...
S: a OK EXAMINE complete
In the above example, three parameters are used with the EXAMINE
command. The second parameter consists of two items: an atom
"RESPONSES" followed by a quoted string.
Example:
C: a SELECT INBOX (BLURDYBLOOP)
S: a BAD Unknown parameter in SELECT command
In the above example, a parameter not supported by the server is
used. This results in the BAD response from the server.
(*) - if a parameter has a mandatory value, which can always be
represented as a number or a sequence-set, the parameter value does
not need the enclosing (). See ABNF for more details.
2.2. Extended CREATE Command
Arguments: mailbox name
OPTIONAL list of CREATE parameters
Responses: no specific responses for this command
Result: OK - create completed
NO - create failure: cannot create mailbox with
that name
BAD - argument(s) invalid
Melnikov & Daboo Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4466 Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF April 2006
This document adds the ability to include one or more parameters with
the IMAP CREATE command (see section 6.3.3 of [IMAP4]), to turn on or
off certain standard behaviors, or to add new optional behaviors
required for a particular extension. No CREATE parameters are
defined in this document.
Optional parameters to the CREATE command are added as a
parenthesized list of attribute/value pairs after the mailbox name.
The order of individual parameters is arbitrary. A parameter value
is optional and may consist of atoms, strings, or lists in a specific
order. If the parameter value is present, it always appears in
parentheses (*). Any parameter not defined by extensions that the
server supports must be rejected with a BAD response.
(*) - if a parameter has a mandatory value, which can always be
represented as a number or a sequence-set, the parameter value does
not need the enclosing (). See ABNF for more details.
2.3. Extended RENAME Command
Arguments: existing mailbox name
new mailbox name
OPTIONAL list of RENAME parameters
Responses: no specific responses for this command
Result: OK - rename completed
NO - rename failure: cannot rename mailbox with
that name, cannot rename to mailbox with
that name, etc.
BAD - argument(s) invalid
This document adds the ability to include one or more parameters with
the IMAP RENAME command (see section 6.3.5 of [IMAP4]), to turn on or
off certain standard behaviors, or to add new optional behaviors
required for a particular extension. No RENAME parameters are
defined in this document.
Optional parameters to the RENAME command are added as a
parenthesized list of attribute/value pairs after the new mailbox
name. The order of individual parameters is arbitrary. A parameter
value is optional and may consist of atoms, strings, or lists in a
specific order. If the parameter value is present, it always appears
in parentheses (*). Any parameter not defined by extensions that the
server supports must be rejected with a BAD response.
Melnikov & Daboo Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4466 Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF April 2006
(*) - if a parameter has a mandatory value, which can always be
represented as a number or a sequence-set, the parameter value does
not need the enclosing (). See ABNF for more details.
2.4. Extensions to FETCH and UID FETCH Commands
Arguments: sequence set
message data item names or macro
OPTIONAL fetch modifiers
Responses: untagged responses: FETCH
Result: OK - fetch completed
NO - fetch error: cannot fetch that data
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
This document extends the syntax of the FETCH and UID FETCH commands
(see section 6.4.5 of [IMAP4]) to include optional FETCH modifiers.
No fetch modifiers are defined in this document.
The order of individual modifiers is arbitrary. Each modifier is an
attribute/value pair. A modifier value is optional and may consist
of atoms and/or strings and/or lists in a specific order. If the
modifier value is present, it always appears in parentheses (*). Any
modifiers not defined by extensions that the server supports must be
rejected with a BAD response.
(*) - if a modifier has a mandatory value, which can always be
represented as a number or a sequence-set, the modifier value does
not need the enclosing (). See ABNF for more details.
2.5. Extensions to STORE and UID STORE Commands
Arguments: message set
OPTIONAL store modifiers
message data item name
value for message data item
Responses: untagged responses: FETCH
Result: OK - store completed
NO - store error: cannot store that data
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
This document extends the syntax of the STORE and UID STORE commands
(see section 6.4.6 of [IMAP4]) to include optional STORE modifiers.
No store modifiers are defined in this document.
Melnikov & Daboo Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4466 Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF April 2006
The order of individual modifiers is arbitrary. Each modifier is an
attribute/value pair. A modifier value is optional and may consist
of atoms and/or strings and/or lists in a specific order. If the
modifier value is present, it always appears in parentheses (*). Any
modifiers not defined by extensions that the server supports must be
rejected with a BAD response.
(*) - if a modifier has a mandatory value, which can always be
represented as a number or a sequence-set, the modifier value does
not need the enclosing (). See ABNF for more details.
2.6. Extensions to SEARCH Command
2.6.1. Extended SEARCH Command
Arguments: OPTIONAL result specifier
OPTIONAL [CHARSET] specification
searching criteria (one or more)
Responses: REQUIRED untagged response: SEARCH (*)
Result: OK - search completed
NO - search error: cannot search that [CHARSET] or
criteria
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
This section updates definition of the SEARCH command described in
section 6.4.4 of [IMAP4].
The SEARCH command is extended to allow for result options. This
document does not define any result options.
The order of individual options is arbitrary. Individual options may
contain parameters enclosed in parentheses (**). If an option has
parameters, they consist of atoms and/or strings and/or lists in a
specific order. Any options not defined by extensions that the
server supports must be rejected with a BAD response.
(*) - An extension to the SEARCH command may require another untagged
response, or no untagged response to be returned. Section 2.6.2
defines a new ESEARCH untagged response that replaces the SEARCH
untagged response. Note that for a given extended SEARCH command the
SEARCH and ESEARCH responses SHOULD be mutually exclusive, i.e., only
one of them should be returned.
(**) - if an option has a mandatory parameter, which can always be
represented as a number or a sequence-set, the option parameter does
not need the enclosing (). See ABNF for more details.
Melnikov & Daboo Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4466 Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF April 2006
2.6.2. ESEARCH untagged response
Contents: one or more search-return-data pairs
The ESEARCH response SHOULD be sent as a result of an extended SEARCH
or UID SEARCH command specified in section 2.6.1.
The ESEARCH response starts with an optional search correlator. If
it is missing, then the response was not caused by a particular IMAP
command, whereas if it is present, it contains the tag of the command
that caused the response to be returned.
The search correlator is followed by an optional UID indicator. If
this indicator is present, all data in the ESEARCH response refers to
UIDs, otherwise all returned data refers to message numbers.
The rest of the ESEARCH response contains one or more search data
pairs. Each pair starts with unique return item name, followed by a
space and the corresponding data. Search data pairs may be returned
in any order. Unless specified otherwise by an extension, any return
item name SHOULD appear only once in an ESEARCH response.
Example: S: * ESEARCH UID COUNT 5 ALL 4:19,21,28
Example: S: * ESEARCH (TAG "a567") UID COUNT 5 ALL 4:19,21,28
Example: S: * ESEARCH COUNT 5 ALL 1:17,21
2.7. Extensions to APPEND Command
The IMAP BINARY extension [BINARY] extends the APPEND command to
allow a client to append data containing NULs by using the <literal8>
syntax. The ABNF was rewritten to allow for easier extensibility by
IMAP extensions. This document hasn't specified any semantical
changes to the [BINARY] extension.
In addition, the non-terminal "literal8" defined in [BINARY] got
extended to allow for non-synchronizing literals if both [BINARY] and
[LITERAL+] extensions are supported by the server.
The IMAP MULTIAPPEND extension [MULTIAPPEND] extends the APPEND
command to allow a client to append multiple messages atomically.
This document defines a common syntax for the APPEND command that
takes into consideration syntactic extensions defined by both
[BINARY] and [MULTIAPPEND] extensions.
Melnikov & Daboo Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 4466 Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF April 2006
3. Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur
Form (ABNF) notation as specified in [ABNF].
Non-terminals referenced but not defined below are as defined by
[IMAP4].
Except as noted otherwise, all alphabetic characters are case-
insensitive. The use of uppercase or lowercase characters to define
token strings is for editorial clarity only. Implementations MUST
accept these strings in a case-insensitive fashion.
append = "APPEND" SP mailbox 1*append-message
;; only a single append-message may appear
;; if MULTIAPPEND [MULTIAPPEND] capability
;; is not present
append-message = append-opts SP append-data
append-ext = append-ext-name SP append-ext-value
;; This non-terminal define extensions to
;; to message metadata.
append-ext-name = tagged-ext-label
append-ext-value= tagged-ext-val
;; This non-terminal shows recommended syntax
;; for future extensions.
append-data = literal / literal8 / append-data-ext
append-data-ext = tagged-ext
;; This non-terminal shows recommended syntax
;; for future extensions,
;; i.e., a mandatory label followed
;; by parameters.
append-opts = [SP flag-list] [SP date-time] *(SP append-ext)
;; message metadata
charset = atom / quoted
;; Exact syntax is defined in [CHARSET].
create = "CREATE" SP mailbox
[create-params]
;; Use of INBOX gives a NO error.
Melnikov & Daboo Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 4466 Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF April 2006
create-params = SP "(" create-param *( SP create-param) ")"
create-param-name = tagged-ext-label
create-param = create-param-name [SP create-param-value]
create-param-value= tagged-ext-val
;; This non-terminal shows recommended syntax
;; for future extensions.
esearch-response = "ESEARCH" [search-correlator] [SP "UID"]
*(SP search-return-data)
;; Note that SEARCH and ESEARCH responses
;; SHOULD be mutually exclusive,
;; i.e., only one of the response types
;; should be
;; returned as a result of a command.
examine = "EXAMINE" SP mailbox [select-params]
;; modifies the original IMAP EXAMINE command
;; to accept optional parameters
fetch = "FETCH" SP sequence-set SP ("ALL" / "FULL" /
"FAST" / fetch-att /
"(" fetch-att *(SP fetch-att) ")")
[fetch-modifiers]
;; modifies the original IMAP4 FETCH command to
;; accept optional modifiers
fetch-modifiers = SP "(" fetch-modifier *(SP fetch-modifier) ")"
fetch-modifier = fetch-modifier-name [ SP fetch-modif-params ]
fetch-modif-params = tagged-ext-val
;; This non-terminal shows recommended syntax
;; for future extensions.
fetch-modifier-name = tagged-ext-label
literal8 = "~{" number ["+"] "}" CRLF *OCTET
;; A string that might contain NULs.
;; <number> represents the number of OCTETs
;; in the response string.
;; The "+" is only allowed when both LITERAL+ and
;; BINARY extensions are supported by the server.
Melnikov & Daboo Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 4466 Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF April 2006
mailbox-data =/ Namespace-Response /
esearch-response
Namespace = nil / "(" 1*Namespace-Descr ")"
Namespace-Command = "NAMESPACE"
Namespace-Descr = "(" string SP
(DQUOTE QUOTED-CHAR DQUOTE / nil)
*(Namespace-Response-Extension) ")"
Namespace-Response-Extension = SP string SP
"(" string *(SP string) ")"
Namespace-Response = "NAMESPACE" SP Namespace
SP Namespace SP Namespace
;; This response is currently only allowed
;; if the IMAP server supports [NAMESPACE].
;; The first Namespace is the Personal Namespace(s)
;; The second Namespace is the Other Users' Namespace(s)
;; The third Namespace is the Shared Namespace(s)
rename = "RENAME" SP mailbox SP mailbox
[rename-params]
;; Use of INBOX as a destination gives
;; a NO error, unless rename-params
;; is not empty.
rename-params = SP "(" rename-param *( SP rename-param) ")"
rename-param = rename-param-name [SP rename-param-value]
rename-param-name = tagged-ext-label
rename-param-value= tagged-ext-val
;; This non-terminal shows recommended syntax
;; for future extensions.
response-data = "*" SP response-payload CRLF
response-payload= resp-cond-state / resp-cond-bye /
mailbox-data / message-data / capability-data
search = "SEARCH" [search-return-opts]
SP search-program
search-correlator = SP "(" "TAG" SP tag-string ")"
Melnikov & Daboo Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 4466 Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF April 2006
search-program = ["CHARSET" SP charset SP]
search-key *(SP search-key)
;; CHARSET argument to SEARCH MUST be
;; registered with IANA.
search-return-data = search-modifier-name SP search-return-value
;; Note that not every SEARCH return option
;; is required to have the corresponding
;; ESEARCH return data.
search-return-opts = SP "RETURN" SP "(" [search-return-opt
*(SP search-return-opt)] ")"
search-return-opt = search-modifier-name [SP search-mod-params]
search-return-value = tagged-ext-val
;; Data for the returned search option.
;; A single "nz-number"/"number" value
;; can be returned as an atom (i.e., without
;; quoting). A sequence-set can be returned
;; as an atom as well.
search-modifier-name = tagged-ext-label
search-mod-params = tagged-ext-val
;; This non-terminal shows recommended syntax
;; for future extensions.
select = "SELECT" SP mailbox [select-params]
;; modifies the original IMAP SELECT command to
;; accept optional parameters
select-params = SP "(" select-param *(SP select-param) ")"
select-param = select-param-name [SP select-param-value]
;; a parameter to SELECT may contain one or
;; more atoms and/or strings and/or lists.
select-param-name= tagged-ext-label
select-param-value= tagged-ext-val
;; This non-terminal shows recommended syntax
;; for future extensions.
status-att-list = status-att-val *(SP status-att-val)
;; Redefines status-att-list from RFC 3501.
Melnikov & Daboo Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 4466 Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF April 2006
;; status-att-val is defined in RFC 3501 errata
status-att-val = ("MESSAGES" SP number) /
("RECENT" SP number) /
("UIDNEXT" SP nz-number) /
("UIDVALIDITY" SP nz-number) /
("UNSEEN" SP number)
;; Extensions to the STATUS responses
;; should extend this production.
;; Extensions should use the generic
;; syntax defined by tagged-ext.
store = "STORE" SP sequence-set [store-modifiers]
SP store-att-flags
;; extend [IMAP4] STORE command syntax
;; to allow for optional store-modifiers
store-modifiers = SP "(" store-modifier *(SP store-modifier)
")"
store-modifier = store-modifier-name [SP store-modif-params]
store-modif-params = tagged-ext-val
;; This non-terminal shows recommended syntax
;; for future extensions.
store-modifier-name = tagged-ext-label
tag-string = string
;; tag of the command that caused
;; the ESEARCH response, sent as
;; a string.
tagged-ext = tagged-ext-label SP tagged-ext-val
;; recommended overarching syntax for
;; extensions
tagged-ext-label = tagged-label-fchar *tagged-label-char
;; Is a valid RFC 3501 "atom".
tagged-label-fchar = ALPHA / "-" / "_" / "."
tagged-label-char = tagged-label-fchar / DIGIT / ":"
Melnikov & Daboo Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 4466 Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF April 2006
tagged-ext-comp = astring /
tagged-ext-comp *(SP tagged-ext-comp) /
"(" tagged-ext-comp ")"
;; Extensions that follow this general
;; syntax should use nstring instead of
;; astring when appropriate in the context
;; of the extension.
;; Note that a message set or a "number"
;; can always be represented as an "atom".
;; An URL should be represented as
;; a "quoted" string.
tagged-ext-simple = sequence-set / number
tagged-ext-val = tagged-ext-simple /
"(" [tagged-ext-comp] ")"
4. Security Considerations
This document updates ABNF in RFCs 2088, 2342, 3501, 3502, and 3516.
The updated documents must be consulted for security considerations
for the extensions that they define.
As a protocol gets more complex, parser bugs become more common
including buffer overflow, denial of service, and other common
security coding errors. To the extent that this document makes the
parser more complex, it makes this situation worse. To the extent
that this document makes the parser more consistent and thus simpler,
the situation is improved. The impact will depend on how many
deployed IMAP extensions are consistent with this document.
Implementers are encouraged to take care of these issues when
extending existing implementations. Future IMAP extensions should
strive for consistency and simplicity to the greatest extent
possible.
Extensions to IMAP commands that are permitted in NOT AUTHENTICATED
state are more sensitive to these security issues due to the larger
possible attacker community prior to authentication, and the fact
that some IMAP servers run with elevated privileges in that state.
This document does not extend any commands permitted in NOT
AUTHENTICATED state. Future IMAP extensions to commands permitted in
NOT AUTHENTICATED state should favor simplicity over consistency or
extensibility.
Melnikov & Daboo Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 4466 Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF April 2006
5. Normative References
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[IMAP4] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL -
VERSION 4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
[ABNF] Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
[CHARSET] Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration
Procedures", BCP 19, RFC 2978, October 2000.
[MULTIAPPEND] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) -
MULTIAPPEND Extension", RFC 3502, March 2003.
[NAMESPACE] Gahrns, M. and C. Newman, "IMAP4 Namespace", RFC 2342,
May 1998.
[LITERAL+] Myers, J., "IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals", RFC
2088, January 1997.
[BINARY] Nerenberg, L., "IMAP4 Binary Content Extension", RFC
3516, April 2003.
6. Acknowledgements
This documents is based on ideas proposed by Pete Resnick, Mark
Crispin, Ken Murchison, Philip Guenther, Randall Gellens, and Lyndon
Nerenberg.
However, all errors and omissions must be attributed to the authors
of the document.
Thanks to Philip Guenther, Dave Cridland, Mark Crispin, Chris Newman,
Elwyn Davies, and Barry Leiba for comments and corrections.
literal8 syntax was taken from RFC 3516.
Melnikov & Daboo Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 4466 Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF April 2006
Authors' Addresses
Alexey Melnikov
Isode Limited
5 Castle Business Village
36 Station Road
Hampton, Middlesex, TW12 2BX
UK
EMail: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com
Cyrus Daboo
EMail: cyrus@daboo.name
Melnikov & Daboo Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 4466 Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF April 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Melnikov & Daboo Standards Track [Page 17]

1011
docs/rfcs/rfc4467.txt Normal file
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

731
docs/rfcs/rfc4469.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,731 @@
Network Working Group P. Resnick
Request for Comments: 4469 QUALCOMM Incorporated
Updates: 3501, 3502 April 2006
Category: Standards Track
Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) CATENATE Extension
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
The CATENATE extension to the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP)
extends the APPEND command to allow clients to create messages on the
IMAP server that may contain a combination of new data along with
parts of (or entire) messages already on the server. Using this
extension, the client can catenate parts of an already existing
message onto a new message without having to first download the data
and then upload it back to the server.
Resnick Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4469 IMAP CATENATE Extension April 2006
1. Introduction
The CATENATE extension to the Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP)
[1] allows the client to create a message on the server that can
include the text of messages (or parts of messages) that already
exist on the server without having to FETCH them and APPEND them back
to the server. The CATENATE extension extends the APPEND command so
that, instead of a single message literal, the command can take as
arguments any combination of message literals (as described in IMAP
[1]) and message URLs (as described in the IMAP URL Scheme [2]
specification). The server takes all the pieces and catenates them
into the output message. The CATENATE extension can also coexist
with the MULTIAPPEND extension [3] to APPEND multiple messages in a
single command.
There are some obvious uses for the CATENATE extension. The
motivating use case was to provide a way for a resource-constrained
client to compose a message for subsequent submission that contains
data that already exists in that client's IMAP store. Because the
client does not have to download and re-upload potentially large
message parts, bandwidth and processing limitations do not have as
much impact. In addition, since the client can create a message in
its own IMAP store, the command also addresses the desire of the
client to archive a copy of a sent message without having to upload
the message twice. (Mechanisms for sending the message are outside
the scope of this document.)
The extended APPEND command can also be used to copy parts of a
message to another mailbox for archival purposes while getting rid of
undesired parts. In environments where server storage is limited, a
client could get rid of large message parts by copying over only the
necessary parts and then deleting the original message. The
mechanism could also be used to add data to a message (such as
prepending message header fields) or to include other data by making
a copy of the original and catenating the new data.
2. The CATENATE Capability
A server that supports this extension returns "CATENATE" as one of
the responses to the CAPABILITY command.
Resnick Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4469 IMAP CATENATE Extension April 2006
3. The APPEND Command
Arguments: mailbox name
(The following can be repeated in the presence of the
MULTIAPPEND extension [3])
OPTIONAL flag parenthesized list
OPTIONAL date/time string
a single message literal or one or more message parts to
catenate, specified as:
message literal
or
message (or message part) URL
Responses: OPTIONAL NO responses: BADURL, TOOBIG
Result: OK - append completed
NO - append error: can't append to that mailbox, error
in flags or date/time or message text, or can't
fetch that data
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The APPEND command concatenates all the message parts and appends
them as a new message to the end of the specified mailbox. The
parenthesized flag list and date/time string set the flags and the
internal date, respectively, as described in IMAP [1]. The
subsequent command parameters specify the message parts that are
appended sequentially to the output message.
If the original form of APPEND is used, a message literal follows the
optional flag list and date/time string, which is appended as
described in IMAP [1]. If the extended form is used, "CATENATE" and
a parenthesized list of message literals and message URLs follows,
each of which is appended to the new message. If a message literal
is specified (indicated by "TEXT"), the octets following the count
are appended. If a message URL is specified (indicated by "URL"),
the octets of the body part pointed to by that URL are appended, as
if the literal returned in a FETCH BODY response were put in place of
the message part specifier. The APPEND command does not cause the
\Seen flag to be set for any catenated body part. The APPEND command
does not change the selected mailbox.
In the extended APPEND command, the string following "URL" is an IMAP
URL [2] and is interpreted according to the rules of [2]. The
present document only describes the behavior of the command using
IMAP URLs that refer to specific messages or message parts on the
current IMAP server from the current authenticated IMAP session.
Because of that, only relative IMAP message or message part URLs
(i.e., those having no scheme or <iserver>) are used. The base URL
Resnick Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4469 IMAP CATENATE Extension April 2006
for evaluating the relative URL is considered "imap://user@server/",
where "user" is the user name of the currently authenticated user and
"server" is the domain name of the current server. When in the
selected state, the base URL is considered
"imap://user@server/mailbox", where "mailbox" is the encoded name of
the currently selected mailbox. Additionally, since the APPEND
command is valid in the authenticated state of an IMAP session, no
further LOGIN or AUTHENTICATE command is performed for URLs specified
in the extended APPEND command.
Note: Use of an absolute IMAP URL or any URL that refers to
anything other than a message or message part from the current
authenticated IMAP session is outside the scope of this document
and would require an extension to this specification, and a server
implementing only this specification would return NO to such a
request.
The client is responsible for making sure that the catenated message
is in the format of an Internet Message Format (RFC 2822) [4] or
Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension (MIME) [5] message. In
particular, when a URL is catenated, the server copies octets,
unchanged, from the indicated message or message part to the
catenated message. It does no data conversion (e.g., MIME transfer
encodings) nor any verification that the data is appropriate for the
MIME part of the message into which it is inserted. The client is
also responsible for inserting appropriate MIME boundaries between
body parts, and writing MIME Content-Type and Content-Transfer-
Encoding lines as needed in the appropriate places.
Responses behave just as the original APPEND command described in
IMAP [1]. If the server implements the IMAP UIDPLUS extension [6],
it will also return an APPENDUID response code in the tagged OK
response. Two response codes are provided in Section 4 that can be
used in the tagged NO response if the APPEND command fails.
4. Response Codes
When a APPEND command fails, it may return a response code that
describes a reason for the failure.
4.1. BADURL Response
The BADURL response code is returned if the APPEND fails to process
one of the specified URLs. Possible reasons for this are bad URL
syntax, unrecognized URL schema, invalid message UID, or invalid body
part. The BADURL response code contains the first URL specified as a
parameter to the APPEND command that has caused the operation to
fail.
Resnick Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4469 IMAP CATENATE Extension April 2006
4.2. TOOBIG Response
The TOOBIG response code is returned if the resulting message will
exceed the 4-GB IMAP message limit. This might happen, for example,
if the client specifies 3 URLs for 2-GB messages. Note that even if
the server doesn't return TOOBIG, it still has to be defensive
against misbehaving or malicious clients that try to construct a
message over the 4-GB limit. The server may also wish to return the
TOOBIG response code if the resulting message exceeds a server-
specific message size limit.
5. Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur
Form (ABNF) [7] notation. Elements not defined here can be found in
the formal syntax of the ABNF [7], IMAP [1], and IMAP ABNF extensions
[8] specifications. Note that capability and resp-text-code are
extended from the IMAP [1] specification and append-data is extended
from the IMAP ABNF extensions [8] specification.
append-data =/ "CATENATE" SP "(" cat-part *(SP cat-part) ")"
cat-part = text-literal / url
text-literal = "TEXT" SP literal
url = "URL" SP astring
resp-text-code =/ toobig-response-code / badurl-response-code
toobig-response-code = "TOOBIG"
badurl-response-code = "BADURL" SP url-resp-text
url-resp-text = 1*(%x01-09 /
%x0B-0C /
%x0E-5B /
%x5D-FE) ; Any TEXT-CHAR except "]"
capability =/ "CATENATE"
The astring in the definition of url and the url-resp-text in the
definition of badurl-response-code each contain an imapurl as defined
by [2].
Resnick Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4469 IMAP CATENATE Extension April 2006
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to the members of the LEMONADE working group for their input.
Special thanks to Alexey Melnikov for the examples.
7. Security Considerations
The CATENATE extension does not raise any security considerations
that are not present for the base protocol or in the use of IMAP
URLs, and these issues are discussed in the IMAP [1] and IMAP URL [2]
documents.
8. IANA Considerations
IMAP4 capabilities are registered by publishing a standards track or
IESG approved experimental RFC. The registry is currently located at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-capabilities>. This document
defines the CATENATE IMAP capability. The IANA has added this
capability to the registry.
Resnick Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4469 IMAP CATENATE Extension April 2006
Appendix A. Examples
Lines not starting with "C: " or "S: " are continuations of the
previous lines.
The original message in examples 1 and 2 below (UID = 20) has the
following structure:
multipart/mixed MIME message with two body parts:
1. text/plain
2. application/x-zip-compressed
Example 1: The following example demonstrates how a CATENATE client
can replace an attachment in a draft message, without the need to
download it to the client and upload it back.
C: A003 APPEND Drafts (\Seen \Draft $MDNSent) CATENATE
(URL "/Drafts;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=20/;section=HEADER"
TEXT {42}
S: + Ready for literal data
C:
C: --------------030308070208000400050907
C: URL "/Drafts;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=20/;section=1.MIME"
URL "/Drafts;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=20/;section=1" TEXT {42}
S: + Ready for literal data
C:
C: --------------030308070208000400050907
C: URL "/Drafts;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=30" TEXT {44}
S: + Ready for literal data
C:
C: --------------030308070208000400050907--
C: )
S: A003 OK catenate append completed
Resnick Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4469 IMAP CATENATE Extension April 2006
Example 2: The following example demonstrates how the CATENATE
extension can be used to replace edited text in a draft message, as
well as header fields for the top level message part (e.g., Subject
has changed). The previous version of the draft is marked as
\Deleted. Note that the server also supports the UIDPLUS extension,
so the APPENDUID response code is returned in the successful OK
response to the APPEND command.
C: A003 APPEND Drafts (\Seen \Draft $MDNSent) CATENATE (TEXT {738}
S: + Ready for literal data
C: Return-Path: <bar@example.org>
C: Received: from [127.0.0.2]
C: by rufus.example.org via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA;
C: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:57:07 +0000
C: Message-ID: <419399E1.6000505@example.org>
C: Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2004 16:57:05 +0000
C: From: Bob Ar <bar@example.org>
C: X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
C: MIME-Version: 1.0
C: To: foo@example.net
C: Subject: About our holiday trip
C: Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
C: boundary="------------030308070208000400050907"
C:
C: --------------030308070208000400050907
C: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
C: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
C:
C: Our travel agent has sent the updated schedule.
C:
C: Cheers,
C: Bob
C: --------------030308070208000400050907
C: URL "/Drafts;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=20/;Section=2.MIME"
URL "/Drafts;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=20/;Section=2" TEXT {44}
S: + Ready for literal data
C:
C: --------------030308070208000400050907--
C: )
S: A003 OK [APPENDUID 385759045 45] append Completed
C: A004 UID STORE 20 +FLAGS.SILENT (\Deleted)
S: A004 OK STORE completed
Resnick Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 4469 IMAP CATENATE Extension April 2006
Example 3: The following example demonstrates how the CATENATE
extension can be used to strip attachments. Below, a PowerPoint
attachment was replaced by a small text part explaining that the
attachment was stripped.
C: A003 APPEND Drafts (\Seen \Draft $MDNSent) CATENATE
(URL "/Drafts;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=21/;section=HEADER"
TEXT {42}
S: + Ready for literal data
C:
C: --------------030308070208000400050903
C: URL "/Drafts;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=21/;section=1.MIME"
URL "/Drafts;UIDVALIDITY=385759045/;UID=21/;section=1" TEXT {255}
S: + Ready for literal data
C:
C: --------------030308070208000400050903
C: Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
C: Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
C:
C: This body part contained a Power Point presentation that was
C: deleted upon your request.
C: --------------030308070208000400050903--
C: )
S: A003 OK append Completed
Resnick Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 4469 IMAP CATENATE Extension April 2006
Example 4: The following example demonstrates a failed APPEND
command. The server returns the BADURL response code to indicate
that one of the provided URLs is invalid. This example also
demonstrates how the CATENATE extension can be used to construct a
digest of several messages.
C: A003 APPEND Sent (\Seen $MDNSent) CATENATE (TEXT {541}
S: + Ready for literal data
C: Return-Path: <foo@example.org>
C: Received: from [127.0.0.2]
C: by rufus.example.org via TCP (internal) with ESMTPA;
C: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:57:07 +0000
C: Message-ID: <419399E1.6000505@example.org>
C: Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2004 16:57:05 +0000
C: From: Farren Oo <foo@example.org>
C: X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
C: MIME-Version: 1.0
C: To: bar@example.org
C: Subject: Digest of the mailing list for today
C: Content-Type: multipart/digest;
C: boundary="------------030308070208000400050904"
C:
C: --------------030308070208000400050904
C: URL "/INBOX;UIDVALIDITY=785799047/;UID=11467" TEXT {42}
S: + Ready for literal data
C:
C: --------------030308070208000400050904
C: URL "/INBOX;UIDVALIDITY=785799047/;UID=113330/;section=1.5.9"
TEXT {42}
S: + Ready for literal data
C:
C: --------------030308070208000400050904
C: URL "/INBOX;UIDVALIDITY=785799047/;UID=11916" TEXT {44}
S: + Ready for literal data
C:
C: --------------030308070208000400050904--
C: )
S: A003 NO [BADURL "/INBOX;UIDVALIDITY=785799047/;UID=113330;
section=1.5.9"] CATENATE append has failed, one message expunged
Note that the server could have validated the URLs as they were
received and therefore could have returned the tagged NO response
with BADURL response-code in place of any continuation request after
the URL was received.
Resnick Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 4469 IMAP CATENATE Extension April 2006
9. Normative References
[1] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION 4rev1",
RFC 3501, March 2003.
[2] Newman, C., "IMAP URL Scheme", RFC 2192, September 1997.
[3] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) -
MULTIAPPEND Extension", RFC 3502, March 2003.
[4] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April 2001.
[5] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",
RFC 2045, November 1996.
[6] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - UIDPLUS
extension", RFC 4315, December 2005.
[7] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
[8] Melnikov, A. and C. Daboo, "Collected Extensions to IMAP4 ABNF",
RFC 4466, April 2006.
Resnick Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 4469 IMAP CATENATE Extension April 2006
Author's Address
Peter W. Resnick
QUALCOMM Incorporated
5775 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, CA 92121-1714
US
Phone: +1 858 651 4478
EMail: presnick@qualcomm.com
URI: http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/
Resnick Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 4469 IMAP CATENATE Extension April 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Resnick Standards Track [Page 13]

1963
docs/rfcs/rfc4549.txt Normal file
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

1403
docs/rfcs/rfc4551.txt Normal file
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff