tobias/docker-offlineimap
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
master
docker-offlineimap/docs/rfcs/rfc2180.IMAP4_multi-accessed_Mailbox_practice.txt

788 lines
24 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Normal View History

doc: add IMAP RFCs Signed-off-by: Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s-dev@laposte.net>
2015-03-02 10:49:51 +01:00
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]
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink