RFC INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL – VERSION 4rev1, March Canonical URL: ; File formats . [RFC ] IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension for Simple [RFC ] INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL – VERSION 4rev1. RFC List. RFC. Problem Solved. Plan for new Protocol. RFC Internet Message Access Protocol – Version 4. Replaced by See
|Published (Last):||15 October 2010|
|PDF File Size:||13.60 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.5 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Examples include different clients working on behalf of the same user, and multiple users accessing shared mailboxes.
evolution-kolab – RFC Reference
BURL is too complex from a “interacting systems, firewalls and authentication methods” perspective. It defines several new rfv control rights and clarifies which rights are required for different IMAP commands. Retrieved from ” https: This will need to be addressed in individual sections. For instance, the specification states that each message stored on the server has a “unique id” to allow the clients to identify messages they have already seen between sessions.
Except making LIST extensible and giving tiny bandwidth improvements and tiny server performance improvements There are a few cases covering list andling – it’s a lot more complex than the small amount of actual data involved justifies.
This specification defines the generic URI syntax and a process for resolving URI references that might be in relative form, along with guidelines and security considerations for the use of URIs rf the Internet.
Avoid having such a complex ABNF – use a structured substrate of some sort. IMAP4 provides a mechanism for a client to ask 35501 server to search for messages meeting a variety of criteria. Reflecting the 35011 of earlier Internet protocols, IMAP4 defines an explicit mechanism by which it 351 be extended. This is almost a replacement protocol in itself – hopefully it will map almost untouched. Make sure protocol supports simple access to emails.
The POP protocol requires the currently connected client to be the only client connected to the mailbox.
They must be able to guarantee that only one client can change message state e. In particular, replacing pairs of mutually exclusive options with a “tristate” makes sense. Unless the mail storage and searching algorithms on the server 35011 carefully implemented, a client can potentially consume large amounts of server resources when searching massive mailboxes.
Less necessary with higher resources available today. E-mail clients using IMAP generally leave messages on the omap until the user explicitly deletes them. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
POP provides no rtc for clients to store such state information on the server so if a single user accesses a mailbox with two different POP clients at different timesstate information—such as imwp a message has been accessed—cannot be synchronized between the clients. An Email Filtering Language. IMAP was designed by Mark Crispin in as a remote access mailbox protocol, in contrast to the widely used POP, a protocol for simply retrieving the contents of a mailbox.
Except making LIST extensible and giving tiny bandwidth improvements and tiny server performance improvements. The URI syntax defines a grammar that is a superset of all ffc URIs, allowing an implementation to parse the common components of a URI reference without knowing the scheme-specific requirements of every possible identifier. This document is a revision of RFC In addition to this, Courier Mail Server offers a non-standard method of sending using IMAP by copying an outgoing message to a dedicated outbox folder.
Mixed responses a jmap LMTP would render many more of them moot. It is possible to store data on a per-mailbox omap or on the server as a whole. The IMAP4 protocol allows clients to retrieve any of the individual MIME parts separately and also to retrieve portions of either individual parts or the entire message.
Expand scope to include other objects annotations, keywords, num-folders, etc consistently. IMAP keywords should not be confused with proprietary labels of web-based e-mail services which are sometimes translated into IMAP folders by the corresponding proprietary servers. Email Unicode and email. Expand scope considerably – Frc is insufficient for many users, because it only monitors one mailbox.
The IMAP specification has been criticised for being insufficiently strict and allowing behaviours that effectively negate its usefulness.
Information on RFC » RFC Editor
Non-authorative addendum to RFC Archived from the original on Heirarchy separator will either be forced or not exist tree data structure on the wire. The current version is defined by RFC Ideally composible actions – first characters of decoded value of part “1.
With the IDLE command, the server can tell the client that a mailbox status has changed. Keywords, which are not supported by all IMAP servers, allow messages to be given one or more tags whose meaning is up to the client.
An Email Filtering Language and all the extentions Support Sieve – possibly even sieve fragments as “run this filter on this mailbox”. The user retrieves the messages with an e-mail client that uses one of a number of e-mail retrieval protocols. Incoming e-mail messages are sent to an e-mail server that stores messages in the recipient’s e-mail box.
Specify quota and ACL handling currently different for keywords and annotations. However, the specification also allows these UIDs to be invalidated with no restrictions, practically defeating their purpose. These problems need to be solved somehow – maybe inherently in a different protocol, maybe explicitly.
This specification does not define a generative grammar for URIs; that task is performed by the individual specifications of each URI scheme. Would love to make this more general – sort by a imal arbitrary function on the message.
Will need some form of Quota. Yet another axis of data – need to merge with keywords and regularise.