summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc1176.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorThomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100
committerThomas Voss <mail@thomasvoss.com> 2024-11-27 20:54:24 +0100
commit4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 (patch)
treee3989f47a7994642eb325063d46e8f08ffa681dc /doc/rfc/rfc1176.txt
parentea76e11061bda059ae9f9ad130a9895cc85607db (diff)
doc: Add RFC documents
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1176.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc1176.txt1683
1 files changed, 1683 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1176.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1176.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1ea72a1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1176.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1683 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group M. Crispin
+Request for Comments: 1176 Washington
+Obsoletes: RFC 1064 August 1990
+
+
+ INTERACTIVE MAIL ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION 2
+
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+ This RFC suggests a method for personal computers and workstations to
+ dynamically access mail from a mailbox server ("repository"). It
+ obosoletes RFC 1064. This RFC specifies an Experimental Protocol for
+ the Internet community. Discussion and suggestions for improvement
+ are requested. Please refer to the current edition of the "IAB
+ Official Protocol Standards" for the standardization state and status
+ of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Introduction
+
+ The intent of the Interactive Mail Access Protocol, Version 2 (IMAP2)
+ is to allow a workstation, personal computer, or similar small
+ machine to access electronic mail from a mailbox server. Since the
+ distinction between personal computers and workstations is blurring
+ over time, it is desirable to have a single solution that addresses
+ the need in a general fashion. IMAP2 is the "glue" of a distributed
+ electronic mail system consisting of a family of client and server
+ implementations on a wide variety of platforms, from small single-
+ tasking personal computing engines to complex multi-user timesharing
+ systems.
+
+ Although different in many ways from the Post Office Protocols (POP2
+ and POP3, hereafter referred to collectively as "POP") described in
+ RFC 937 and RFC 1081, IMAP2 may be thought of as a functional
+ superset of these. RFC 937 was used as a model for this RFC. There
+ was a cognizant reason for this; POP deals with a similar problem,
+ albeit with a less comprehensive solution, and it was desirable to
+ offer a basis for comparison.
+
+ Like POP, IMAP2 specifies a means of accessing stored mail and not of
+ posting mail; this function is handled by a mail transfer protocol
+ such as SMTP (RFC 821).
+
+ This protocol assumes a reliable data stream such as provided by TCP
+ or any similar protocol. When TCP is used, the IMAP2 server listens
+ on port 143.
+
+
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+System Model and Philosophy
+
+ Electronic mail is a primary means of communication for the widely
+ spread Internet community. The advent of distributed personal
+ computers and workstations has forced a significant rethinking of the
+ mechanisms employed to manage electronic mail. With mainframes, each
+ user tends to receive and process mail at the computer he uses most
+ of the time, his "primary host". The first inclination of many users
+ when an independent workstation is placed in front of them is to
+ begin receiving mail at the workstation, and many vendors have
+ implemented facilities to do this. However, this approach has
+ several disadvantages:
+
+ (1) Personal computers and many workstations have a software
+ design that gives full control of all aspects of the system to the
+ user at the console. As a result, background tasks such as
+ receiving mail may not run for long periods of time; either
+ because the user is asking to use all the machine's resources, or
+ because the user has (perhaps accidentally) manipulated the
+ environment in such a way that it prevents mail reception. In
+ many personal computers, the operating system is single-tasking
+ and this is the only mode of operation. Any of these conditions
+ could lead to repeated failed delivery attempts by outside agents.
+
+ (2) The hardware failure of a single machine can keep its user
+ "off the air" for a considerable time, since repair of individual
+ units may be delayed. Given the growing number of personal
+ computers and workstations spread throughout office environments,
+ quick repair of such systems is not assured. On the other hand, a
+ central mainframe is generally repaired soon after failure.
+
+ (3) Personal computers and workstations are often not backed up
+ with as much diligence as a central mainframe, if at all.
+
+ (4) It is more difficult to keep track of mailing addresses when
+ each person is associated with a distinct machine. Consider the
+ difficulty in keeping track of many postal addresses or phone
+ numbers, particularly if there was no single address or phone
+ number for an organization through which you could reach any
+ person in that organization. Traditionally, electronic mail on
+ the ARPANET involved remembering a name and one of several "hosts"
+ (machines) whose name reflected the organization in which the
+ individual worked. This was suitable at a time when most
+ organizations had only one central host. It is less satisfactory
+ today unless the concept of a host is changed to refer to an
+ organizational entity and not a particular machine.
+
+ (5) It is difficult to keep a multitude of heterogeneous machines
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ working properly with complex mailing protocols, making it
+ difficult to move forward as progress is made in electronic
+ communication and as new standards emerge. Each system has to
+ worry about receiving incoming mail, routing and delivering
+ outgoing mail, formatting, storing, and providing for the
+ stability of mailboxes over a variety of possible filing and
+ mailing protocols.
+
+ Consequently, while a personal computer or workstation may be viewed
+ as an Internet host in the sense that it implements TCP/IP, it should
+ not be viewed as the entity that contains the user's mailbox.
+ Instead, a mail server machine ("server", sometimes called a
+ "repository") should hold the mailbox, and the personal computer or
+ workstation (hereafter referred to as a "client") should access the
+ mailbox via mail transactions.
+
+ Because the mail server machine is isolated from direct user
+ manipulation, it should achieve high software reliability easily,
+ and, as a shared resource, it should also achieve high hardware
+ reliability, perhaps through redundancy. The mail server may be
+ accessed from arbitrary locations, allowing users to read mail across
+ campus, town, or country using commonly available clients.
+ Furthermore, the same user may access his mailbox from different
+ clients at different times, and multiple users may access the same
+ mailbox simultaneously.
+
+ The mail server acts an an interface among users, data storage, and
+ other mailers. A mail access protocol retrieves messages, accesss
+ and changes properties of messages, and otherwise manages mailboxes.
+ This differs from some approaches (e.g., Unix mail via NFS) in that
+ the mail access protocol is used for all message manipulations,
+ isolating the user and the client from all knowledge of how the data
+ storage is used. This means that the mail server can use the data
+ storage in whatever way is most efficient to organize the mail in
+ that particular environment, without having to worry about storage
+ representation compatibility across different machines.
+
+ A mail access protocol further differs in that it transmits
+ information only on demand. A well-designed mail access protocol
+ requires considerably less network traffic than Unix mail via NFS,
+ particularly when the mail file is large. The result is that a mail
+ access protocol can scale well to situations of large mailboxes or
+ networks with high latency or low speed.
+
+ In defining a mail access protocol, it is important to keep in mind
+ that the client and server form a macrosystem, in which it should be
+ possible to exploit the strong points of both while compensating for
+ each other's weaknesses. Furthermore, it is desirable to allow for a
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ growth path beyond the hoary text-only RFC 822 protocol, specifically
+ in the area of attachments and multi-media mail, to ease the eventual
+ transition to ISO solutions.
+
+ Unlike POP, IMAP2 has extensive features for remote searching and
+ parsing of messages on the server. A free text search (optionally
+ with other searching) can be made in the entire mailbox by the server
+ and the results made available to the client without the client
+ having to transfer the entire mailbox and searching itself. Since
+ remote parsing of a message into a structured (and standard format)
+ "envelope" is available, a client can display envelope information
+ and implement commands such as REPLY without having any understanding
+ of how to parse RFC 822, etc. headers. The effect of this is
+ twofold: it further improves the ability to scale well in instances
+ where network traffic must be reduced, and it reduces the complexity
+ of the client program.
+
+ Additionally, IMAP2 offers several facilities for managing individual
+ message state and the mailbox as a whole beyond the simple "delete
+ message" functionality of POP. Another benefit of IMAP2 is the use
+ of tagged responses to reduce the possibility of synchronization
+ errors and the concept of state on the client (a "local cache") that
+ the server may update without explicit request by the client. These
+ concepts and how they are used are explained under "Implementation
+ Discussion" below.
+
+ In spite of this functional richness, IMAP2 is a small protocol.
+ Although servers should implement the full set of IMAP2 functions, a
+ simple client can be written that uses IMAP2 in much the way as a POP
+ client.
+
+ A related protocol to POP and IMAP2 is the DMSP protocol of PCMAIL
+ (RFC 1056). IMAP2 differs from DMSP more fundamentally, reflecting a
+ differing architecture from PCMAIL. PCMAIL is either an online
+ ("interactive mode"), or offline ("batch mode") system with long-term
+ shared state. Some POP based systems are also offline; in such
+ systems, since there is no long-term shared state POP is little more
+ than a download mechanism of the "mail file" to the client. IMAP2-
+ based software is primarily an online system in which real-time and
+ simultaneous mail access were considered important.
+
+ In PCMAIL, there is a long-term client/server relationship in which
+ some mailbox state is preserved on the client. There is a
+ registration of clients used by a particular user, and the client
+ keeps a set of "descriptors" for each message that summarize the
+ message. The server and client synchronize their states when the
+ DMSP connection starts up, and, if a client has not accessed the
+ server for a while, the client does a complete reset (reload) of its
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 4]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ state from the server.
+
+ In IMAP2-based software, the client/server relationship lasts only
+ for the duration of the TCP connection. All mailbox state is
+ maintained on the server. There is no registration of clients. The
+ function of a descriptor is handled by a structured representation of
+ the message "envelope" as noted above. There is no client/server
+ synchronization since the client does not remember state between
+ IMAP2 connections. This is not a problem since in general the client
+ never needs the entire state of the mailbox in a single session,
+ therefore there isn't much overhead in fetching the state information
+ that is needed as it is needed.
+
+ There are also some functional differences between IMAP2 and DMSP.
+ DMSP has functions for sending messages, printing messages, listing
+ mailboxes, and changing passwords; these are done outside IMAP2.
+ DMSP has 16 binary flags of which 8 are defined by the system. IMAP2
+ has flag names; there are currently 5 defined system flag names and a
+ facility for some number (30 in the current implementations) of user
+ flag names. IMAP2 has a sophisticated message search facility in the
+ server to identify interesting messages based on dates, addresses,
+ flag status, or textual contents without compelling the client to
+ fetch this data for every message.
+
+ It was felt that maintaining state on the client is advantageous only
+ in those cases where the client is only used by a single user, or if
+ there is some means on the client to restrict access to another
+ user's data. It can be a serious disadvantage in an environment in
+ which multiple users routinely use the same client, the same user
+ routinely uses different clients, and where there are no access
+ restrictions on the client. It was also observed that most user mail
+ access is to a small set of "interesting" messages, which were either
+ new mail or mail based on some user-selected criteria. Consequently,
+ IMAP2 was designed to easily identify those "interesting" messages so
+ that the client could fetch the state of those messages and not those
+ that were not "interesting".
+
+The Protocol
+
+ The IMAP2 protocol consists of a sequence of client commands and
+ server responses, with server data interspersed between the
+ responses. Unlike most Internet protocols, commands and responses
+ are tagged. That is, a command begins with a unique identifier
+ (typically a short alphanumeric sequence such as a Lisp "gensym"
+ function would generate e.g., A0001, A0002, etc.), called a tag. The
+ response to this command is given the same tag from the server.
+ Additionally, the server may send an arbitrary amount of "unsolicited
+ data", which is identified by the special reserved tag of "*". There
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 5]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ is another special reserved tag, "+", discussed below.
+
+ The server must be listening for a connection. When a connection is
+ opened the server sends an unsolicited OK response as a greeting
+ message and then waits for commands.
+
+ The client opens a connection and waits for the greeting. The client
+ must not send any commands until it has received the greeting from
+ the server.
+
+ Once the greeting has been received, the client may begin sending
+ commands and is not under any obligation to wait for a server
+ response to this command before sending another command, within the
+ constraints of TCP flow control. When commands are received the
+ server acts on them and responds with command responses, often
+ interspersed with data. The effect of a command can not be
+ considered complete until a command response with a tag matching the
+ command is received from the server.
+
+ Although all known IMAP2 servers at the time of this writing process
+ commands to completion before processing the next command, it is not
+ required that a server do so. However, many commands can affect the
+ results of other commands, creating processing-order dependencies
+ (or, for SEARCH and FIND, ambiguities about which data is associated
+ with which command). All implementations that operate in a non-
+ lockstep fashion must recognize such dependencies and defer or
+ synchronize execution as necessary. In general, such multi-
+ processing is limited to consecutive FETCH commands.
+
+ Generally, the first command from the client is a LOGIN command with
+ user name and password arguments to establish identity and access
+ authorization, unless this has already been accomplished through
+ other means, e.g. Kerberos. Until identity and access authorization
+ have been established, no operations other than LOGIN or LOGOUT are
+ permitted.
+
+ Once identity and authorization have been established, the client
+ must send a SELECT command to access the desired mailbox; no mailbox
+ is selected by default. SELECT's argument is implementation-
+ dependent; however the word "INBOX" must be implemented to mean the
+ primary or default mailbox for this user, independent of any other
+ server semantics. On a successful SELECT, the server will send a
+ list of valid flags, number of messages, and number of messages
+ arrived since last access for this mailbox as unsolicited data,
+ followed by an OK response. The client may terminate access to this
+ mailbox and access a different one with another SELECT command.
+
+ The client reads mailbox information with FETCH commands. The actual
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 6]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ data is transmitted via the unsolicited data mechanism (that is,
+ FETCH should be viewed as instructing the server to include the
+ desired data along with any other data it wishes to transmit to the
+ client). There are three major categories of data that may be
+ fetched.
+
+ The first category is data that is associated with a message as an
+ entity in the mailbox. There are now three such items of data: the
+ "internal date", the "RFC 822 size", and the "flags". The internal
+ date is the date and time that the message was placed in the mailbox.
+ The RFC 822 size is subject to deletion in the future; it is the size
+ in bytes of the message, expressed as an RFC 822 text string.
+ Current clients only use it as part of a status display line. The
+ flags are a list of status flags associated with the message (see
+ below). All the first category data can be fetched by using the
+ macro-fetch word "FAST"; that is, "FAST" expands to "(FLAGS
+ INTERNALDATE RFC822.SIZE)".
+
+ The second category is that data that describes the composition and
+ delivery information of a message; that is, information such as the
+ message sender, recipient lists, message-ID, subject, etc. This is
+ the information that is stored in the message header in RFC 822
+ format message and is traditionally called the "envelope". [Note:
+ this should not be confused with the SMTP (RFC 821) envelope, which
+ is strictly limited to delivery information.] IMAP2 defines a
+ structured and unambiguous representation for the envelope that is
+ particularly suited for Lisp-based parsers. A client can use the
+ envelope for operations such as replying and not worry about RFC 822
+ at all. Envelopes are discussed in more detail below. The first two
+ categories of data can be fetched together by using the macro-fetch
+ word "ALL"; that is, "ALL" expands to "(FLAGS INTERNALDATE
+ RFC822.SIZE ENVELOPE)".
+
+ The third category is that data that is intended for direct human
+ viewing. The present RFC 822 based IMAP2 defines three such items:
+ RFC822.HEADER, RFC822.TEXT, and RFC822 (the latter being the two
+ former appended together in a single text string). RFC822.HEADER is
+ the "raw", unprocessed RFC 822 format header of the message.
+ Fetching "RFC822" is equivalent to fetching the RFC 822
+ representation of the message as stored on the mailbox without any
+ filtering or processing.
+
+ An intelligent client will "FETCH ALL" for some (or all) of the
+ messages in the mailbox for use as a presentation menu, and when the
+ user wishes to read a particular message will "FETCH RFC822.TEXT" to
+ get the message body. A more primitive client could, of course,
+ simply "FETCH RFC822" a`la POP-type functionality.
+
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 7]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ The client can alter certain data (currently only the flags) by a
+ STORE command. As an example, a message is deleted from a mailbox by
+ a STORE command that includes the \DELETED flag as a flag being set.
+
+ Other client operations include copying a message to another mailbox
+ (COPY command), permanently removing deleted messages (EXPUNGE
+ command), checking for new messages (CHECK command), and searching
+ for messages that match certain criteria (SEARCH command).
+
+ The client terminates the session with the LOGOUT command. The
+ server returns a "BYE" followed by an "OK".
+
+ A Typical Scenario
+
+ Client Server
+ ------ ------
+ {Wait for Connection}
+ {Open Connection} -->
+ <-- * OK IMAP2 Server Ready
+ {Wait for command}
+ A001 LOGIN Fred Secret -->
+ <-- A001 OK User Fred logged in
+ {Wait for command}
+ A002 SELECT INBOX -->
+ <-- * FLAGS (Meeting Notice \Answered
+ \Flagged \Deleted \Seen)
+ <-- * 19 EXISTS
+ <-- * 2 RECENT
+ <-- A0002 OK Select complete
+ {Wait for command}
+ A003 FETCH 1:19 ALL -->
+ <-- * 1 Fetch (......)
+ ...
+ <-- * 18 Fetch (......)
+ <-- * 19 Fetch (......)
+ <-- A003 OK Fetch complete
+ {Wait for command}
+ A004 FETCH 8 RFC822.TEXT -->
+ <-- * 8 Fetch (RFC822.TEXT {893}
+ ...893 characters of text...
+ <-- )
+ <-- A004 OK Fetch complete
+ {Wait for command}
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 8]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ A005 STORE 8 +Flags \Deleted -->
+ <-- * 8 Store (Flags (\Deleted
+ \Seen))
+ <-- A005 OK Store complete
+ {Wait for command}
+ A006 EXPUNGE -->
+ <-- * 19 EXISTS
+ <-- * 8 EXPUNGE
+ <-- * 18 EXISTS
+ <-- A006 Expunge complete
+ {Wait for command}
+ A007 LOGOUT -->
+ <-- * BYE IMAP2 server quitting
+ <-- A007 OK Logout complete
+ {Close Connection} --><-- {Close connection}
+ {Go back to start}
+Conventions
+
+ The following terms are used in a meta-sense in the syntax
+ specification below:
+
+ An ASCII-STRING is a sequence of arbitrary ASCII characters.
+
+ An ATOM is a sequence of ASCII characters delimited by SP or CRLF.
+
+ A CHARACTER is any ASCII character except """", "{", CR, LF, "%",
+ or "\".
+
+ A CRLF is an ASCII carriage-return character followed immediately
+ by an ASCII linefeed character.
+
+ A NUMBER is a sequence of the ASCII characters that represent
+ decimal numerals ("0" through "9"), delimited by SP, CRLF, ",", or
+ ":".
+
+ A SP is the ASCII space character.
+
+ A TEXT_LINE is a human-readable sequence of ASCII characters up to
+ but not including a terminating CRLF.
+
+ A common field in the IMAP2 protocol is a STRING, which may be an
+ ATOM, QUOTED-STRING (a sequence of CHARACTERs inside double-quotes),
+ or a LITERAL. A literal consists of an open brace ("{"), a number, a
+ close brace ("}"), a CRLF, and then an ASCII-STRING of n characters,
+ where n is the value of the number inside the brace. In general, a
+ string should be represented as an ATOM or QUOTED-STRING if at all
+ possible. The semantics for QUOTED-STRING or LITERAL are checked
+ before those for ATOM; therefore an ATOM used in a STRING may only
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 9]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ contain CHARACTERs. Literals are most often sent from the server to
+ the client; in the rare case of a client to server literal there is a
+ special consideration (see the "+ text" response below).
+
+ Another important field is the SEQUENCE, which identifies a set of
+ messages by consecutive numbers from 1 to n where n is the number of
+ messages in the mailbox. A sequence may consist of a single number,
+ a pair of numbers delimited by colon (equivalent to all numbers
+ between those two numbers), or a list of single numbers or number
+ pairs. For example, the sequence 2,4:7,9,12:15 is equivalent to
+ 2,4,5,6,7,9,12,13,14,15 and identifies all those messages.
+
+Definitions of Commands and Responses
+
+ Summary of Commands and Responses
+
+ Commands || Responses
+ -------- || -------
+ tag NOOP || tag OK text
+ tag LOGIN user password || tag NO text
+ tag LOGOUT || tag BAD text
+ tag SELECT mailbox || * number message_data
+ tag BBOARD bulletin_board || * FLAGS flag_list
+ tag FIND MAILBOXES pattern || * SEARCH sequence
+ tag FIND BBOARDS pattern || * BBOARD string
+ tag CHECK || * MAILBOX string
+ tag EXPUNGE || * BYE text
+ tag COPY sequence mailbox || * OK text
+ tag FETCH sequence data || * NO text
+ tag STORE sequence data value || * BAD text
+ tag SEARCH search_program || + text
+
+Commands
+
+ tag NOOP
+
+ The NOOP command returns an OK to the client. By itself, it does
+ nothing, but certain things may happen as side effects. For
+ example, server implementations that implicitly check the mailbox
+ for new mail may do so as a result of this command. The primary
+ use of this command is to for the client to see if the server is
+ still alive (and notify the server that the client is still alive,
+ for those servers that have inactivity autologout timers).
+
+ tag LOGIN user password
+
+ The LOGIN command identifies the user to the server and carries
+ the password authenticating this user. This information is used
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 10]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ by the server to control access to the mailboxes.
+
+ EXAMPLE: A001 LOGIN SMITH SESAME
+ logs in as user SMITH with password SESAME.
+
+ tag LOGOUT
+
+ The LOGOUT command informs the server that the client is done with
+ the session. The server should send an unsolicited BYE response
+ before the (tagged) OK response, and then close the network
+ connection.
+
+ tag SELECT mailbox
+
+ The SELECT command selects a particular mailbox. The server must
+ check that the user is permitted read access to this mailbox.
+ Before returning an OK to the client, the server must send the
+ following unsolicited data to the client:
+ FLAGS mailbox's defined flags
+ <n> EXISTS the number of messages in the mailbox
+ <n> RECENT the number of new messages in the mailbox
+ in order to define the initial state of the mailbox at the client.
+
+ Multiple SELECT commands are permitted in a session, in which case
+ the previous mailbox is automatically deselected when a new SELECT
+ is made.
+
+ The default mailbox for the SELECT command is INBOX, which is a
+ special name reserved to mean "the primary mailbox for this user
+ on this server". The format of other mailbox names is operating
+ system dependent (as of this writing, it reflects the filename
+ path of the mailbox file on the current servers).
+
+ It is customary, although not required, for the text of an OK
+ response to the SELECT command to begin with either "[READ-ONLY]"
+ or "[READ-WRITE]" to show the mailbox's access status.
+
+ EXAMPLE: A002 SELECT INBOX
+ selects the default mailbox.
+
+ tag BBOARD bulletin_board
+
+ The BBOARD command is equivalent to SELECT, and returns the same
+ output. However, it differs from SELECT in that its argument is a
+ shared mailbox (bulletin board) name instead of an ordinary
+ mailbox. The format of a bulletin name is implementation
+ specific, although it is strongly encouraged to use something that
+ resembles a name in a generic sense and not a file or mailbox name
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 11]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ on the particular system. There is no requirement that a bulletin
+ board name be a mailbox name or a file name (in particular, Unix
+ netnews has a completely different namespace from mailbox or file
+ names).
+
+ Support for BBOARD is optional.
+
+ tag FIND MAILBOXES pattern
+
+ The FIND MAILBOXES command accepts as an argument a pattern
+ (including wildcards) that specifies some set of mailbox names
+ that are usable by the SELECT command. The format of mailboxes is
+ implementation dependent. The special mailbox name INBOX is not
+ included in the output.
+
+ Two wildcard characters are defined; "*" specifies any number
+ (including zero) characters may match at this position and "%"
+ specifies a single character may match at this position. For
+ example, FOO*BAR will match FOOBAR, FOOD.ON.THE.BAR and FOO.BAR,
+ whereas FOO%BAR will match only FOO.BAR. "*" will match all
+ mailboxes.
+
+ The FIND MAILBOXES command will return some set of unsolicited
+ MAILBOX replies that have as their value a single mailbox name.
+
+ EXAMPLE: A002 FIND MAILBOXES *
+ * MAILBOX FOOBAR
+ * MAILBOX GENERAL
+ A002 FIND completed
+
+ Although the use of explicit file or path names for mailboxes is
+ discouraged by this standard, it may be unavoidable. It is
+ important that the value returned in the MAILBOX unsolicited reply
+ be usable in the SELECT command without remembering any path
+ specification that may have been used in the FIND MAILBOXES
+ pattern.
+
+ Support for FIND MAILBOXES is optional. If a client's attempt
+ returns BAD as a response then the client can make no assumptions
+ about what mailboxes exist on the server other than INBOX.
+
+ tag FIND BBOARDS pattern
+
+ The FIND BBOARDS command accepts as an argument a pattern that
+ specifies some set of bulletin board names that are usable by the
+ BBOARD command. Wildcards are permitted as in FIND MAILBOXES.
+
+ The FIND BBOARDS command will return some set of unsolicited
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 12]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ BBOARD replies that have as their value a single bulletin board
+ name.
+
+ EXAMPLE: A002 FIND BBOARDS *
+ * BBOARD FOOBAR
+ * BBOARD GENERAL
+ A002 FIND completed
+
+ Support for FIND BBOARDS is optional. If a client's attempt
+ returns BAD as a response then the client can make no assumptions
+ about what bulletin boards exist on the server, or that they exist
+ at all.
+
+ tag CHECK
+
+ The CHECK command forces a check for new messages and a rescan of
+ the mailbox for internal change for those implementations that
+ allow multiple simultaneous read/write access to the same mailbox.
+ It is recommend that periodic implicit checks for new mail be done
+ by servers as well. The server should send unsolicited EXISTS and
+ RECENT responses with the current status before returning an OK to
+ the client.
+
+ tag EXPUNGE
+
+ The EXPUNGE command permanently removes all messages with the
+ \DELETED flag set in its flags from the mailbox. Before returning
+ an OK to the client, for each message that is removed, an
+ unsolicited EXPUNGE response is sent. The message number for each
+ successive message in the mailbox is immediately decremented by 1;
+ this means that if the last 5 messages in a 9-message mail file
+ are expunged you will receive 5 unsolicited EXPUNGE responses for
+ message 5. To ensure mailbox integrity and server/client
+ synchronization, it is recommended that the server do an implicit
+ check before commencing the expunge and again when the expunge is
+ completed. Furthermore, if the server allows multiple
+ simultaneous access to the same mail file the server must lock the
+ mail file for exclusive access while an expunge is taking place.
+
+ EXPUNGE is not allowed if the user does not have write access to
+ this mailbox.
+
+ tag COPY sequence mailbox
+
+ The COPY command copies the specified message(s) to the specified
+ destination mailbox. If the destination mailbox does not exist,
+ the server should create it. Before returning an OK to the
+ client, the server should return an unsolicited <n> COPY response
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 13]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ for each message copied. A copy should set the \SEEN flag for all
+ messages that were successfully copied (provided, of course, that
+ the user has write access to this mailbox).
+
+ EXAMPLE: A003 COPY 2:4 MEETING
+ copies messages 2, 3, and 4 to mailbox "MEETING".
+
+ COPY is not allowed if the user does not have write access to the
+ destination mailbox.
+
+ tag FETCH sequence data
+
+ The FETCH command retrieves data associated with a message in the
+ mailbox. The data items to be fetched may be either a single atom
+ or an S-expression list. The currently defined data items that
+ can be fetched are:
+
+ ALL Macro equivalent to:
+ (FLAGS INTERNALDATE RFC822.SIZE ENVELOPE)
+
+ ENVELOPE The envelope of the message. The envelope is
+ computed by the server by parsing the RFC 822
+ header into the component parts, defaulting
+ various fields as necessary.
+
+ FAST Macro equivalent to:
+ (FLAGS INTERNALDATE RFC822.SIZE)
+
+ FLAGS The flags that are set for this message.
+ This may include the following system flags:
+
+ \RECENT Message arrived since the
+ previous time this mailbox
+ was read
+ \SEEN Message has been read
+ \ANSWERED Message has been answered
+ \FLAGGED Message is "flagged" for
+ urgent/special attention
+ \DELETED Message is "deleted" for
+ removal by later EXPUNGE
+
+ INTERNALDATE The date and time the message was written to
+ the mailbox.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 14]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ RFC822 The message in RFC 822 format. The \SEEN
+ flag is implicitly set; if this causes the
+ flags to change they should be included as
+ part of the fetch results. This is the
+ concatenation of RFC822.HEADER and RFC822.TEXT.
+
+ RFC822.HEADER The "raw" RFC 822 format header of the message
+ as stored on the server.
+
+ RFC822.SIZE The number of characters in the message as
+ expressed in RFC 822 format.
+
+ RFC822.TEXT The text body of the message, omitting the
+ RFC 822 header. The \SEEN flag is implicitly
+ set as with RFC822 above.
+
+ EXAMPLES:
+
+ A003 FETCH 2:4 ALL
+ fetches the flags, internal date, RFC 822 size, and envelope
+ for messages 2, 3, and 4.
+
+ A004 FETCH 3 RFC822
+ fetches the RFC 822 representation for message 3.
+
+ A005 FETCH 4 (FLAGS RFC822.HEADER)
+ fetches the flags and RFC 822 format header for message 4.
+
+ Note: An attempt to FETCH already-transmitted data may have no
+ result. See the Implementation Discussion below.
+
+ tag STORE sequence data value
+
+ The STORE command alters data associated with a message in the
+ mailbox. The currently defined data items that can be stored are:
+
+ FLAGS Replace the flags for the message with the
+ argument (in flag list format).
+
+ +FLAGS Add the flags in the argument to the
+ message's flag list.
+
+ -FLAGS Remove the flags in the argument from the
+ message's flag list.
+
+ STORE is not allowed if the user does not have write access to
+ this mailbox.
+
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 15]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ EXAMPLE: A003 STORE 2:4 +FLAGS (\DELETED)
+ marks messages 2, 3, and 4 for deletion.
+
+ tag SEARCH search_criteria
+
+ The SEARCH command searches the mailbox for messages that match
+ the given set of criteria. The unsolicited SEARCH <1#number>
+ response from the server is a list of messages that express the
+ intersection (AND function) of all the messages which match that
+ criteria. For example,
+ A003 SEARCH DELETED FROM "SMITH" SINCE 1-OCT-87
+ returns the message numbers for all deleted messages from Smith
+ that were placed in the mail file since October 1, 1987.
+
+ In all search criteria which use strings, a message matches the
+ criteria if the string is a case-independent substring of that
+ field. The currently defined criteria are:
+
+ ALL All messages in the mailbox; the default
+ initial criterion for ANDing.
+
+ ANSWERED Messages with the \ANSWERED flag set.
+
+ BCC string Messages which contain the specified string
+ in the envelope's BCC field.
+
+ BEFORE date Messages whose internal date is earlier than
+ the specified date.
+
+ BODY string Messages which contain the specified string
+ in the body of the message.
+
+ CC string Messages which contain the specified string
+ in the envelope's CC field.
+
+ DELETED Messages with the \DELETED flag set.
+
+ FLAGGED Messages with the \FLAGGED flag set.
+
+ FROM string Messages which contain the specified string
+ in the envelope's FROM field.
+
+ KEYWORD flag Messages with the specified flag set.
+
+ NEW Messages which have the \RECENT flag set but
+ not the \SEEN flag. This is functionally
+ equivalent to "RECENT UNSEEN".
+
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 16]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ OLD Messages which do not have the \RECENT flag
+ set.
+
+ ON date Messages whose internal date is the same as
+ the specified date.
+
+ RECENT Messages which have the \RECENT flag set.
+
+ SEEN Messages which have the \SEEN flag set.
+
+ SINCE date Messages whose internal date is later than
+ the specified date.
+
+ SUBJECT string Messages which contain the specified string
+ in the envelope's SUBJECT field.
+
+ TEXT string Messages which contain the specified string.
+
+ TO string Messages which contain the specified string in
+ the envelope's TO field.
+
+ UNANSWERED Messages which do not have the \ANSWERED flag
+ set.
+
+ UNDELETED Messages which do not have the \DELETED flag
+ set.
+
+ UNFLAGGED Messages which do not have the \FLAGGED flag
+ set.
+
+ UNKEYWORD flag Messages which do not have the specified flag
+ set.
+
+ UNSEEN Messages which do not have the \SEEN flag set.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 17]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+Responses
+
+ tag OK text
+
+ This response identifies successful completion of the command with
+ that tag. The text is a line of human-readable text that may be
+ useful in a protocol telemetry log for debugging purposes.
+
+ tag NO text
+
+ This response identifies unsuccessful completion of the command
+ with that tag. The text is a line of human-readable text that
+ probably should be displayed to the user in an error report by the
+ client.
+
+ tag BAD text
+
+ This response identifies faulty protocol received from the client;
+ The text is a line of human-readable text that should be recorded
+ in any telemetry as part of a bug report to the maintainer of the
+ client.
+
+ * number message_data
+
+ This response occurs as a result of several different commands.
+ The message_data is one of the following:
+
+ EXISTS The specified number of messages exists in the mailbox.
+
+ RECENT The specified number of messages have arrived since the
+ previous time this mailbox was read.
+
+ EXPUNGE The specified message number has been permanently
+ removed from the mailbox, and the next message in the
+ mailbox (if any) becomes that message number.
+
+ STORE data
+ Obsolete and functionally equivalent to FETCH.
+
+ FETCH data
+ This is the principle means by which data about a
+ message is returned to the client. The data is in a
+ Lisp-like S-expression property list form. The current
+ properties are:
+
+ ENVELOPE An S-expression format list that describes the
+ envelope of a message. The envelope is computed
+ by the server by parsing the RFC 822 header into
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 18]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ the component parts, defaulting various fields
+ as necessary.
+
+ The fields of the envelope are in the following
+ order: date, subject, from, sender, reply-to, to,
+ cc, bcc, in-reply-to, and message-id. The date,
+ subject, in-reply-to, and message-id fields are
+ strings. The from, sender, reply-to, to, cc,
+ and bcc fields are lists of addresses.
+
+ An address is an S-expression format list that
+ describes an electronic mail address. The fields
+ of an address are in the following order:
+ personal name, source-route (a.k.a. the
+ at-domain-list in SMTP), mailbox name, and
+ host name.
+
+ Any field of an envelope or address that is
+ not applicable is presented as the atom NIL.
+ Note that the server must default the reply-to
+ and sender fields from the from field; a client is
+ not expected to know to do this.
+
+ FLAGS An S-expression format list of flags that are set
+ for this message. This may include the following
+ system flags:
+
+ \RECENT Message arrived since the
+ previous time this mailbox
+ was read
+ \SEEN Message has been read
+ \ANSWERED Message has been answered
+ \FLAGGED Message is "flagged" for
+ urgent/special attention
+ \DELETED Message is "deleted" for
+ removal by later EXPUNGE
+
+ INTERNALDATE A string containing the date and time the
+ message was written to the mailbox.
+
+ RFC822 A string expressing the message in RFC 822
+ format.
+
+ RFC822.HEADER A string expressing the RFC 822 format
+ header of the message
+
+ RFC822.SIZE A number indicating the number of
+ characters in the message as expressed
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 19]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ in RFC 822 format.
+
+ RFC822.TEXT A string expressing the text body of the
+ message, omitting the RFC 822 header.
+
+ * FLAGS flag_list
+
+ This response occurs as a result of a SELECT command. The flag
+ list are the list of flags (at a minimum, the system-defined
+ flags) that are applicable for this mailbox. Flags other than the
+ system flags are a function of the server implementation.
+
+ * SEARCH number(s)
+
+ This response occurs as a result of a SEARCH command. The
+ number(s) refer to those messages that match the search criteria.
+ Each number is delimited by a space, e.g., "SEARCH 2 3 6".
+
+ * BBOARD string
+
+ This response occurs as a result of a FIND BBOARDS command. The
+ string is a bulletin board name that matches the pattern in the
+ command.
+
+ * MAILBOX string
+
+ This response occurs as a result of a FIND MAILBOXES command. The
+ string is a mailbox name that matches the pattern in the command.
+
+ * BYE text
+
+ This response identifies that the server is about to close the
+ connection. The text is a line of human-readable text that should
+ be displayed to the user in a status report by the client. This
+ may be sent as part of a normal logout sequence, or as a panic
+ shutdown announcement by the server. It is also used by some
+ servers as an announcement of an inactivity autologout.
+
+ * OK text
+
+ This response identifies normal operation on the server. No
+ special action by the client is called for, however, the text
+ should be displayed to the user in some fashion. This is
+ currently only used by servers at startup as a greeting message to
+ show they are ready to accept the first command.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 20]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ * NO text
+
+ This response identifies a warning from the server that does not
+ affect the overall results of any particular request. The text is
+ a line of human-readable text that should be presented to the user
+ as a warning of improper operation.
+
+ * BAD text
+
+ This response identifies a serious error at the server; it may
+ also indicate faulty protocol from the client in which a tag could
+ not be parsed. The text is a line of human-readable text that
+ should be presented to the user as a serious or possibly fatal
+ error. It should also be recorded in any telemetry as part of a
+ bug report to the maintainer of the client and server.
+
+ + text
+
+ This response identifies that the server is ready to accept the
+ text of a literal from the client. Normally, a command from the
+ client is a single text line. If the server detects an error in
+ the command, it can simply discard the remainder of the line. It
+ cannot do this for commands that contain literals, since a literal
+ can be an arbitrarily long amount of text, and the server may not
+ even be expecting a literal. This mechanism is provided so the
+ client knows not to send a literal until the server expects it,
+ preserving client/server synchronization.
+
+ In practice, this condition is rarely encountered. In the current
+ protocol, the only client command likely to contain a literal is
+ the LOGIN command. Consider a server that validates the user
+ before checking the password. If the password contains "funny"
+ characters and hence is sent as a literal, then if the user is
+ invalid an error would occur before the password is parsed.
+
+ No such synchronization protection is provided for literals sent
+ from the server to the client, for performance reasons. Any
+ synchronization problems in this direction would be caused by a
+ bug in the client or server.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 21]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+Sample IMAP2 session
+
+ The following is a transcript of an IMAP2 session. Server output is
+ identified by "S:" and client output by "U:". In cases where lines
+ are too long to fit within the boundaries of this document, the line
+ is continued on the next line.
+
+ S: * OK SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Interim Mail Access Protocol II Service
+ 6.1(349) at Thu, 9 Jun 88 14:58:30 PDT
+ U: a001 login crispin secret
+ S: a002 OK User CRISPIN logged in at Thu, 9 Jun 88 14:58:42 PDT, job 76
+ U: a002 select inbox
+ S: * FLAGS (Bugs SF Party Skating Meeting Flames Request AI Question
+ Note \XXXX \YYYY \Answered \Flagged \Deleted \Seen)
+ S: * 16 EXISTS
+ S: * 0 RECENT
+ S: a002 OK Select complete
+ U: a003 fetch 16 all
+ S: * 16 Fetch (Flags (\Seen) InternalDate " 9-Jun-88 12:55:44 PDT"
+ RFC822.Size 637 Envelope ("Sat, 4 Jun 88 13:27:11 PDT"
+ "INFO-MAC Mail Message" (("Larry Fagan" NIL "FAGAN"
+ "SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU")) (("Larry Fagan" NIL "FAGAN"
+ "SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU")) (("Larry Fagan" NIL "FAGAN"
+ "SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU")) ((NIL NIL "rindflEISCH"
+ "SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU")) NIL NIL NIL
+ "<12403828905.13.FAGAN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>"))
+ S: a003 OK Fetch completed
+ U: a004 fetch 16 rfc822
+ S: * 16 Fetch (RFC822 {637}
+ S: Mail-From: RINDFLEISCH created at 9-Jun-88 12:55:43
+ S: Mail-From: FAGAN created at 4-Jun-88 13:27:12
+ S: Date: Sat, 4 Jun 88 13:27:11 PDT
+ S: From: Larry Fagan <FAGAN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
+ S: To: rindflEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
+ S: Subject: INFO-MAC Mail Message
+ S: Message-ID: <12403828905.13.FAGAN@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
+ S: ReSent-Date: Thu, 9 Jun 88 12:55:43 PDT
+ S: ReSent-From: TC Rindfleisch <Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
+ S: ReSent-To: Yeager@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU,
+ Crispin@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU
+ S: ReSent-Message-ID:
+ <12405133897.80.RINDFLEISCH@SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU>
+ S:
+ S: The file is <info-mac>usenetv4-55.arc ...
+ S: Larry
+ S: -------
+ S: )
+ S: a004 OK Fetch completed
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 22]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ U: a005 logout
+ S: * BYE DEC-20 IMAP II server terminating connection
+ S: a005 OK SUMEX-AIM.Stanford.EDU Interim Mail Access Protocol
+ Service logout
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 23]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+Implementation Discussion
+
+ There are several advantages to the scheme of tags and unsolicited
+ responses. First, the infamous synchronization problems of SMTP and
+ similar protocols do not happen with tagged commands; a command is
+ not considered satisfied until a response with the same tag is seen.
+ Tagging allows an arbitrary amount of other responses ("unsolicited"
+ data) to be sent by the server with no possibility of the client
+ losing synchronization. Compare this with the problems that FTP or
+ SMTP clients have with continuation, partial completion, and
+ commentary reply codes.
+
+ Another advantage is that a non-lockstep client implementation is
+ possible. The client could send a command, and entrust the handling
+ of the server responses to a different process that would signal the
+ client when the tagged response comes in. Under certain
+ circumstances, the client may have more than one command outstanding.
+
+ It was observed that synchronization problems can occur with literals
+ if the literal is not recognized as such. Fortunately, the cases in
+ which this can happen are rare; a mechanism (the special "+" tag
+ response) was introduced to handle those few cases. The proper way
+ to address this problem is probably to move towards a record-oriented
+ architecture instead of the text stream model provided by TCP.
+
+ An IMAP2 client must maintain a local cache of data from the mailbox.
+ This cache is an incomplete model of the mailbox, and at startup is
+ empty. A listener processes all unsolicited data, and updates the
+ cache based on this data. If a tagged response arrives, the listener
+ unblocks the process that sent the tagged request.
+
+ Unsolicited data needs some discussion. Unlike most protocols, in
+ which the server merely does the client's bidding, an IMAP2 server
+ has a semi-autonomous role. By sending "unsolicited data", the
+ server is in effect sending a command to the client -- to update or
+ extend the client's cache with new information from the server. In
+ other words, a "fetch" command is merely a request to the server to
+ ensure that the client's cache has the most up-to-date version of the
+ requested information. A server acknowledgement to the "fetch" is a
+ statement that all the requested data has been sent.
+
+ Although no current server does this, a server is not obliged by the
+ protocol to send data that it has already sent and is unchanged. An
+ exception to this is the actual message text fetching operations
+ (RFC822, RFC822.HEADER, and RFC822.TEXT), owing to the possibly
+ excessive resource consumption of maintaining this data in a cache.
+ It can not be assumed that a FETCH will transmit any data; only that
+ an OK to the FETCH means that the client's cache has the most up-to-
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 24]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ date information.
+
+ When a mailbox is selected, the initial unsolicited data from the
+ server arrives. The first piece of data is the number of messages.
+ By sending a new EXISTS unsolicited data message the server causes
+ the client to resize its cache (this is how newly arrived mail is
+ handled). If the client attempts to access information from the
+ cache, it will encounter empty spots that will trigger "fetch"
+ requests. The request would be sent, some unsolicited data including
+ the answer to the fetch will flow back, and then the "fetch" response
+ will unblock the client.
+
+ People familiar with demand-paged virtual memory operating system
+ design will recognize this model as being similar to page-fault
+ handling on a demand-paged system.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 25]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+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
+ a comma.
+
+ address ::= "(" addr_name SP addr_adl SP addr_mailbox SP
+ addr_host ")"
+
+ addr_adl ::= nil / string
+
+ addr_host ::= nil / string
+
+ addr_mailbox ::= nil / string
+
+ addr_name ::= nil / string
+
+ bboard ::= "BBOARD" SP string
+
+ check ::= "CHECK"
+
+ copy ::= "COPY" SP sequence SP mailbox
+
+ data ::= ("FLAGS" SP flag_list / "SEARCH" SP 1#number /
+ "BYE" SP text_line / "OK" SP text_line /
+ "NO" SP text_line / "BAD" SP text_line)
+
+ date ::= string in form "dd-mmm-yy hh:mm:ss-zzz"
+
+ envelope ::= "(" env_date SP env_subject SP env_from SP
+ env_sender SP env_reply-to SP env_to SP
+ env_cc SP env_bcc SP env_in-reply-to SP
+ env_message-id ")"
+
+ env_bcc ::= nil / "(" 1*address ")"
+
+ env_cc ::= nil / "(" 1*address ")"
+
+ env_date ::= string
+
+ env_from ::= nil / "(" 1*address ")"
+
+ env_in-reply-to ::= nil / string
+
+ env_message-id ::= nil / string
+
+ env_reply-to ::= nil / "(" 1*address ")"
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 26]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ env_sender ::= nil / "(" 1*address ")"
+
+ env_subject ::= nil / string
+
+ env_to ::= nil / "(" 1*address ")"
+
+ expunge ::= "EXPUNGE"
+
+ fetch ::= "FETCH" SP sequence SP ("ALL" / "FAST" /
+ fetch_att / "(" 1#fetch_att ")")
+
+ fetch_att ::= "ENVELOPE" / "FLAGS" / "INTERNALDATE" /
+ "RFC822" / "RFC822.HEADER" / "RFC822.SIZE" /
+ "RFC822.TEXT"
+
+ find ::= "FIND" SP find_option SP string
+
+ find_option ::= "MAILBOXES" / "BBOARDS"
+
+ flag_list ::= ATOM / "(" 1#ATOM ")"
+
+ literal ::= "{" NUMBER "}" CRLF ASCII-STRING
+
+ login ::= "LOGIN" SP userid SP password
+
+ logout ::= "LOGOUT"
+
+ mailbox ::= "INBOX" / string
+
+ msg_copy ::= "COPY"
+
+ msg_data ::= (msg_exists / msg_recent / msg_expunge /
+ msg_fetch / msg_copy)
+
+ msg_exists ::= "EXISTS"
+
+ msg_expunge ::= "EXPUNGE"
+
+ msg_fetch ::= ("FETCH" / "STORE") SP "(" 1#("ENVELOPE" SP
+ envelope / "FLAGS" SP "(" 1#(recent_flag
+ flag_list) ")" / "INTERNALDATE" SP date /
+ "RFC822" SP string / "RFC822.HEADER" SP string /
+ "RFC822.SIZE" SP NUMBER / "RFC822.TEXT" SP
+ string) ")"
+
+ msg_recent ::= "RECENT"
+
+ msg_num ::= NUMBER
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 27]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ nil ::= "NIL"
+
+ noop ::= "NOOP"
+
+ password ::= string
+
+ recent_flag ::= "\RECENT"
+
+ ready ::= "+" SP text_line
+
+ request ::= tag SP (noop / login / logout / select / check /
+ expunge / copy / fetch / store / search / find /
+ bboard) CRLF
+
+ response ::= tag SP ("OK" / "NO" / "BAD") SP text_line CRLF
+
+ search ::= "SEARCH" SP 1#("ALL" / "ANSWERED" /
+ "BCC" SP string / "BEFORE" SP string /
+ "BODY" SP string / "CC" SP string / "DELETED" /
+ "FLAGGED" / "KEYWORD" SP atom / "NEW" / "OLD" /
+ "ON" SP string / "RECENT" / "SEEN" /
+ "SINCE" SP string / "TEXT" SP string /
+ "TO" SP string / "UNANSWERED" / "UNDELETED" /
+ "UNFLAGGED" / "UNKEYWORD" / "UNSEEN")
+
+ select ::= "SELECT" SP mailbox
+
+ sequence ::= NUMBER / (NUMBER "," sequence) / (NUMBER ":"
+ sequence)
+
+ store ::= "STORE" SP sequence SP store_att
+
+ store_att ::= ("+FLAGS" SP flag_list / "-FLAGS" SP flag_list /
+ "FLAGS" SP flag_list)
+
+ string ::= atom / """" 1*character """" / literal
+
+ system_flags ::= "\ANSWERED" SP "\FLAGGED" SP "\DELETED" SP
+ "\SEEN"
+
+ tag ::= atom
+
+ unsolicited ::= "*" SP (msg_num SP msg_data / data) CRLF
+
+ userid ::= string
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 28]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+Implementation Status
+
+ This information is current as of this writing.
+
+ The University of Washington has developed an electronic mail client
+ library called the "C-Client". It provides complete IMAP2, SMTP, and
+ local mailbox (both /usr/spool/mail and mail.txt formats) services in
+ a well-defined way to a user interface main program. Using the C-
+ Client, the University of Washington has created an operational
+ client for BSD Unix and two operational clients (one basic, one
+ advanced) for the NeXT.
+
+ Stanford University/SUMEX has developed operational IMAP2 clients for
+ Xerox Lisp machines, Texas Instruments Explorers, and the Apple
+ Macintosh. The core of the Macintosh client is an early version of
+ the C-Client. SUMEX has also developed IMAP2 servers for TOPS-20 and
+ BSD Unix.
+
+ All of the above software is in production use, with enthusiastic
+ local user communities. Active development continues on the
+ Macintosh and C-Client based clients and the BSD Unix server. This
+ software is freely available from the University of Washington and
+ SUMEX.
+
+ IMAP2 software exists for other platforms; for example Nippon
+ Telephone and Telegraph (NTT) has developed an operational IMAP2
+ client for the NTT ELIS. Several organizations are working on a PC
+ client.
+
+ IMAP2 can be used to access mailboxes at very remote sites, where
+ echo delays and frequent outages make TELNET and running a local mail
+ reader intolerable. For example, from a desktop workstation on the
+ University of Washington local network the author routinely uses
+ IMAP2 to read and manage mailboxes on various University of
+ Washington local servers, at two systems at Stanford University, at a
+ Milnet site, and at a site in Tokyo, Japan.
+
+ This specification does not make any formal definition of size
+ restrictions, but the DEC-20 server has the following limitations:
+
+ . length of a mailbox: 7,077,888 characters
+ . maximum number of messages: 18,432 messages
+ . length of a command line: 10,000 characters
+ . length of the local host name: 64 characters
+ . length of a "short" argument: 39 characters
+ . length of a "long" argument: 491,520 characters
+ . maximum amount of data output in a single fetch:
+ 655,360 characters
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 29]
+
+RFC 1176 IMAP2 August 1990
+
+
+ To date, nobody has run up against any of these limitations, many of
+ which are substantially larger than most current user mail reading
+ programs.
+
+Acknowledgements
+
+ Bill Yeager and Rich Acuff both contributed invaluable suggestions in
+ the evolution of IMAP2 from the original IMAP. James Rice pointed
+ out several ambiguities in the previous IMAP2 specification and
+ otherwise would not allow me to leave bad enough along. Laurence
+ Lundblade reviewed a draft of this version and made several helpful
+ suggestions.
+
+ Many dedicated individuals have worked on IMAP2 software, including:
+ Mark Crispin, Frank Gilmurray, Christopher Lane, Hiroshi Okuno,
+ Christopher Schmidt, and Bill Yeager.
+
+ Any mistakes, flaws, or sins of omission in this IMAP2 protocol
+ specification are, however, strictly my own; and the mention of any
+ name above does not imply an endorsement.
+
+Security Considerations
+
+ Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
+
+Author's Address
+
+ Mark R. Crispin
+ Panda Programming
+ 6158 Lariat Loop NE
+ Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-2020
+
+ Phone: (206) 842-2385
+
+ EMail: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Crispin [Page 30]
+ \ No newline at end of file