620 lines
22 KiB
Plaintext
620 lines
22 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Melnikov
|
|||
|
Request for Comments: 5788 D. Cridland
|
|||
|
Category: Standards Track Isode Limited
|
|||
|
ISSN: 2070-1721 March 2010
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
IMAP4 Keyword Registry
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Abstract
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The aim of this document is to establish a new IANA registry for IMAP
|
|||
|
keywords and to define a procedure for keyword registration, in order
|
|||
|
to improve interoperability between different IMAP clients.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Status of This Memo
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
|
|||
|
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
|
|||
|
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
|
|||
|
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
|
|||
|
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
|
|||
|
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
|
|||
|
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5788.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Copyright Notice
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
|
|||
|
document authors. All rights reserved.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
|
|||
|
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
|
|||
|
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
|
|||
|
publication of this document. Please review these documents
|
|||
|
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
|
|||
|
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
|
|||
|
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
|
|||
|
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
|
|||
|
described in the Simplified BSD License.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Melnikov & Cridland Standards Track [Page 1]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 5788 IMAP4 Keyword Registry March 2010
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Table of Contents
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1. Introduction ....................................................2
|
|||
|
2. Conventions Used in This Document ...............................2
|
|||
|
3. IANA Considerations .............................................3
|
|||
|
3.1. Review Guidelines for the Designated Expert Reviewer .......4
|
|||
|
3.2. Comments on IMAP Keywords' Registrations ...................5
|
|||
|
3.3. Change Control .............................................5
|
|||
|
3.4. Initial Registrations ......................................6
|
|||
|
3.4.1. $MDNSent IMAP Keyword Registration ..................6
|
|||
|
3.4.2. $Forwarded IMAP Keyword Registration ................7
|
|||
|
3.4.3. $SubmitPending IMAP Keyword Registration ............8
|
|||
|
3.4.4. $Submitted IMAP Keyword Registration ................9
|
|||
|
4. Security Considerations ........................................10
|
|||
|
5. Acknowledgements ...............................................10
|
|||
|
6. References .....................................................10
|
|||
|
6.1. Normative References ......................................10
|
|||
|
6.2. Informative References ....................................11
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1. Introduction
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
IMAP keywords [RFC3501] are boolean named flags that can be used by
|
|||
|
clients to annotate messages in an IMAP mailbox. Although IMAP
|
|||
|
keywords are an optional feature of IMAP, the majority of IMAP
|
|||
|
servers can store arbitrary keywords. Many mainstream IMAP clients
|
|||
|
use a limited set of specific keywords, and some can manage (create,
|
|||
|
edit, display) arbitrary IMAP keywords.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Over the years, some IMAP keywords have become de-facto standards,
|
|||
|
with some specific semantics associated with them. In some cases,
|
|||
|
different client implementors decided to define and use keywords with
|
|||
|
different names, but the same semantics. Some server implementors
|
|||
|
decided to map such keywords automatically in order to improve cross-
|
|||
|
client interoperability.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In other cases, the same keywords have been used with different
|
|||
|
semantics, thus causing interoperability problems.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This document attempts to prevent further incompatible uses of IMAP
|
|||
|
keywords by establishing an "IMAP Keywords" registry and allocating a
|
|||
|
special prefix for standardized keywords.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
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 RFC 2119 [Kwds].
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Melnikov & Cridland Standards Track [Page 2]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 5788 IMAP4 Keyword Registry March 2010
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3. IANA Considerations
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
IANA has established a new registry for IMAP keywords.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Registration of an IMAP keyword is requested by filling in the
|
|||
|
following template and following the instructions on the IANA pages
|
|||
|
for the registry to submit it to IANA:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Subject: Registration of IMAP keyword X
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
IMAP keyword name:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Purpose (description):
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Private or Shared on a server: (One of PRIVATE, SHARED, or BOTH.
|
|||
|
PRIVATE means that each different
|
|||
|
user has a distinct copy of the
|
|||
|
keyword. SHARED means that all
|
|||
|
different users see the same value of
|
|||
|
the keyword. BOTH means that an IMAP
|
|||
|
server can have the keyword as either
|
|||
|
private or shared.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Is it an advisory keyword or may it cause an automatic action:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
When/by whom the keyword is set/cleared:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Related keywords: (for example, "mutually exclusive with keywords Y
|
|||
|
and Z")
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Related IMAP capabilities:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Security considerations:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Published specification (recommended):
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Person & email address to contact for further information:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Intended usage: (One of COMMON, LIMITED USE, or DEPRECATED (i.e.,
|
|||
|
not recommended for use))
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Owner/Change controller: (MUST be "IESG" for any "common use"
|
|||
|
keyword registration specified in an IETF
|
|||
|
Review document. See definition of "common
|
|||
|
use" below in this section. When the
|
|||
|
Owner/Change controller is not a
|
|||
|
Standardization Organization, the
|
|||
|
registration request MUST make it clear if
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Melnikov & Cridland Standards Track [Page 3]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 5788 IMAP4 Keyword Registry March 2010
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
the registration is controlled by a
|
|||
|
company, or the individual performing the
|
|||
|
registration.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Note: (Any other information that the author deems interesting
|
|||
|
may be added here, for example, if the keyword(s) is
|
|||
|
supported by existing clients.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Registration of an IMAP keyword requires Expert Review [RFC5226].
|
|||
|
Registration of any IMAP keyword is initiated by posting a
|
|||
|
registration request to the Message Organization WG mailing list
|
|||
|
<morg@ietf.org> (or its replacement as chosen by the responsible
|
|||
|
Application Area Director) and CCing IANA (<iana@iana.org>). After
|
|||
|
allowing for at least two weeks for community input on the designated
|
|||
|
mailing list, the expert will determine the appropriateness of the
|
|||
|
registration request and either approve or disapprove the request
|
|||
|
with notice to the requestor, the mailing list, and IANA. Any
|
|||
|
refusal must come with a clear explanation.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The IESG appoints one or more Expert Reviewers for the IMAP keyword
|
|||
|
registry established by this document.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The Expert Reviewer should strive for timely reviews. The Expert
|
|||
|
Reviewer should take no longer than six weeks to make and announce
|
|||
|
the decision, or notify the mailing list that more time is required.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Decisions (or lack of) made by an Expert Reviewer can be first
|
|||
|
appealed to Application Area Directors and, if the appellant is not
|
|||
|
satisfied with the response, to the full IESG.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There are two types of IMAP keywords in the "IMAP Keywords" registry:
|
|||
|
intended for "common use" and vendor-/organization-specific use (also
|
|||
|
known as "limited use"). An IMAP keyword is said to be for "common
|
|||
|
use" if it is reasonably expected to be implemented in at least two
|
|||
|
independent client implementations. The two types of IMAP keywords
|
|||
|
have different levels of requirements for registration (see below).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3.1. Review Guidelines for the Designated Expert Reviewer
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Expert Reviewers should focus on the following requirements.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Registration of a vendor-/organization-specific ("limited use") IMAP
|
|||
|
keyword is easier. The Expert Reviewer only needs to check that the
|
|||
|
requested name doesn't conflict with an already registered name, and
|
|||
|
that the name is not too generic, misleading, etc. The Expert
|
|||
|
Reviewer MAY request the IMAP keyword name change before approving
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Melnikov & Cridland Standards Track [Page 4]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 5788 IMAP4 Keyword Registry March 2010
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
the registration. The Expert Reviewer SHOULD refuse a registration
|
|||
|
if there is an already registered IMAP keyword that serves the same
|
|||
|
purpose, but has a different name.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
When registering an IMAP keyword for "common use", the Expert
|
|||
|
Reviewer performs the checks described for vendor-/
|
|||
|
organization-specific IMAP keywords, plus additional checks as
|
|||
|
detailed below.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Keywords intended for "common use" SHOULD start with the "$" prefix.
|
|||
|
(Note that this is a SHOULD because some of the commonly used IMAP
|
|||
|
keywords in widespread use don't follow this convention.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
IMAP keywords intended for "common use" SHOULD be standardized in
|
|||
|
IETF Review [RFC5226] documents. (Note that IETF Review documents
|
|||
|
still require Expert Review.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Values in the "IMAP Keywords" IANA registry intended for "common use"
|
|||
|
must be clearly documented and likely to ensure interoperability.
|
|||
|
They must be useful, not harmful to the Internet. In cases when an
|
|||
|
IMAP keyword being registered is already deployed, Expert Reviewers
|
|||
|
should favor registering it over requiring perfect documentation
|
|||
|
and/or requesting a change to the name of the IMAP keyword.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The Expert Reviewer MAY automatically "upgrade" registration requests
|
|||
|
for a "limited use" IMAP keyword to "common use" level. The Expert
|
|||
|
Reviewer MAY also request that a registration targeted for "common
|
|||
|
use" be registered as "limited use" instead.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3.2. Comments on IMAP Keywords' Registrations
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Comments on registered IMAP keywords should be sent to both the
|
|||
|
"owner" of the mechanism and to the mailing list designated to IMAP
|
|||
|
keyword review (see Section 3). This improves the chances of getting
|
|||
|
a timely response.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Submitters of comments may, after a reasonable attempt to contact the
|
|||
|
owner and after soliciting comments on the IMAP mailing list, request
|
|||
|
the designated Expert Reviewer to attach their comment to the IMAP
|
|||
|
keyword registration itself. The procedure is similar to requesting
|
|||
|
an Expert Review for the affected keyword.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3.3. Change Control
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Once an IMAP keyword registration has been published by IANA, the
|
|||
|
owner may request a change to its definition. The change request
|
|||
|
(including a change to the "intended usage" field) follows the same
|
|||
|
procedure as the initial registration request, with the exception of
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Melnikov & Cridland Standards Track [Page 5]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 5788 IMAP4 Keyword Registry March 2010
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
changes to the "Person & email address to contact for further
|
|||
|
information" and "Owner/Change controller" fields. The latter can be
|
|||
|
changed by the owner by informing IANA; this can be done without
|
|||
|
discussion or review.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The IESG may reassign responsibility for an IMAP keyword. The most
|
|||
|
common case of this will be to enable clarifications to be made to
|
|||
|
keywords where the owner of the registration has died, moved out of
|
|||
|
contact, or is otherwise unable to make changes that are important to
|
|||
|
the community.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
IMAP keyword registrations MUST NOT be deleted; keywords that are no
|
|||
|
longer believed appropriate for use can be declared DEPRECATED by a
|
|||
|
change to their "intended usage" field.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The IESG is considered the owner of all "common use" IMAP keywords
|
|||
|
that are published in an IETF Review document.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3.4. Initial Registrations
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
IANA has registered the IMAP keywords specified in following
|
|||
|
subsections in the registry established by this document.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3.4.1. $MDNSent IMAP Keyword Registration
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Subject: Registration of IMAP keyword $MDNSent
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
IMAP keyword name: $MDNSent
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Purpose (description): Specifies that a Message Disposition
|
|||
|
Notification (MDN) must not be sent for any
|
|||
|
message annotated with the $MDNSent IMAP
|
|||
|
keyword.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Private or Shared on a server: SHARED
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Is it an advisory keyword or may it cause an automatic action:
|
|||
|
This keyword can cause automatic action by
|
|||
|
the client. See [RFC3503] for more details.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
When/by whom the keyword is set/cleared:
|
|||
|
This keyword is set by an IMAP client when it
|
|||
|
decides to act on an MDN request, or when
|
|||
|
uploading a sent or draft message. It can
|
|||
|
also be set by a delivery agent. Once set,
|
|||
|
the flag SHOULD NOT be cleared.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Melnikov & Cridland Standards Track [Page 6]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 5788 IMAP4 Keyword Registry March 2010
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Related keywords: None
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Related IMAP capabilities: None
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Security considerations: See Section 6 of [RFC3503]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Published specification (recommended): [RFC3503]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Person & email address to contact for further information:
|
|||
|
Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Intended usage: COMMON
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Owner/Change controller: IESG
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Note:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3.4.2. $Forwarded IMAP Keyword Registration
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Subject: Registration of the IMAP keyword $Forwarded
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
IMAP keyword name: $Forwarded
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Purpose (description): $Forwarded is used by several IMAP clients to
|
|||
|
specify that the message was resent to
|
|||
|
another email address, embedded within or
|
|||
|
attached to a new message. This keyword is
|
|||
|
set by the mail client when it successfully
|
|||
|
forwards the message to another email
|
|||
|
address. Typical usage of this keyword is to
|
|||
|
show a different (or additional) icon for a
|
|||
|
message that has been forwarded.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Private or Shared on a server: BOTH
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Is it an advisory keyword or may it cause an automatic action:
|
|||
|
advisory
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
When/by whom the keyword is set/cleared:
|
|||
|
This keyword can be set by either a delivery
|
|||
|
agent or a mail client. Once set, the flag
|
|||
|
SHOULD NOT be cleared. Notes: There is no
|
|||
|
way to tell if a message with $Forwarded
|
|||
|
keyword set was forwarded more than once.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Related keywords: None
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Related IMAP capabilities: None
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Melnikov & Cridland Standards Track [Page 7]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 5788 IMAP4 Keyword Registry March 2010
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Security considerations: A server implementing this keyword as a
|
|||
|
shared keyword may disclose that a
|
|||
|
confidential message was forwarded.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Published specification (recommended): [RFC5550]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Person & email address to contact for further information:
|
|||
|
Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Intended usage: COMMON
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Owner/Change controller: IESG
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Note:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3.4.3. $SubmitPending IMAP Keyword Registration
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Subject: Registration of IMAP keyword $SubmitPending
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
IMAP keyword name: $SubmitPending
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Purpose (description): The $SubmitPending IMAP keyword designates
|
|||
|
the message as awaiting to be submitted.
|
|||
|
This keyword allows storing messages waiting
|
|||
|
to be submitted in the same mailbox where
|
|||
|
messages that were already submitted and/or
|
|||
|
are being edited are stored.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A message that has both $Submitted and
|
|||
|
$SubmitPending IMAP keywords set is a message
|
|||
|
being actively submitted.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Private or Shared on a server: SHARED
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Is it an advisory keyword or may it cause an automatic action:
|
|||
|
This keyword can cause automatic action by
|
|||
|
the client. See Section 5.10 of [RFC5550]
|
|||
|
for more details.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
When/by whom the keyword is set/cleared:
|
|||
|
This keyword is set by a mail client when it
|
|||
|
decides that the message needs to be sent
|
|||
|
out.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Related keywords: $Submitted
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Related IMAP capabilities: None
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Melnikov & Cridland Standards Track [Page 8]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 5788 IMAP4 Keyword Registry March 2010
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Security considerations: A server implementing this keyword as a
|
|||
|
shared keyword may disclose that a
|
|||
|
confidential message is scheduled to be
|
|||
|
sent out or is being actively sent out.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Published specification (recommended): [RFC5550]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Person & email address to contact for further information:
|
|||
|
Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Intended usage: COMMON
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Owner/Change controller: IESG
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Note:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
3.4.4. $Submitted IMAP Keyword Registration
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Subject: Registration of IMAP keyword $Submitted
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
IMAP keyword name: $Submitted
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Purpose (description): The $Submitted IMAP keyword designates the
|
|||
|
message as being sent out.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A message that has both $Submitted and
|
|||
|
$SubmitPending IMAP keywords set is a message
|
|||
|
being actively submitted.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Private or Shared on a server: SHARED
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Is it an advisory keyword or may it cause an automatic action:
|
|||
|
This keyword can cause automatic action by
|
|||
|
the client. See Section 5.10 of [RFC5550]
|
|||
|
for more details.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
When/by whom the keyword is set/cleared:
|
|||
|
This keyword is set by a mail client when it
|
|||
|
decides to start sending it.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Related keywords: $SubmitPending
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Related IMAP capabilities: None
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Security considerations: A server implementing this keyword as a
|
|||
|
shared keyword may disclose that a
|
|||
|
confidential message was sent or is being
|
|||
|
actively sent out.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Melnikov & Cridland Standards Track [Page 9]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 5788 IMAP4 Keyword Registry March 2010
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Published specification (recommended): [RFC5550]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Person & email address to contact for further information:
|
|||
|
Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Intended usage: COMMON
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Owner/Change controller: IESG
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Note:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4. Security Considerations
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
IMAP keywords are one of the base IMAP features [RFC3501]. This
|
|||
|
document doesn't change their behavior, so it does not add new
|
|||
|
security issues.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A particular IMAP keyword might have specific security
|
|||
|
considerations, which are documented in the IMAP keyword
|
|||
|
registration template standardized by this document.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
5. Acknowledgements
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The creation of this document was prompted by one of many discussions
|
|||
|
on the IMAP mailing list.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Neystadt co-authored the first version of this document.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Special thanks to Chris Newman, David Harris, Lyndon Nerenberg, Mark
|
|||
|
Crispin, Samuel Weiler, Alfred Hoenes, Lars Eggert, and Cullen
|
|||
|
Jennings for reviewing different versions of this document. However,
|
|||
|
all errors or omissions must be attributed to the authors of this
|
|||
|
document.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The authors would also like to thank the developers of Mozilla mail
|
|||
|
clients for providing food for thought.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6. References
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.1. Normative References
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[Kwds] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
|
|||
|
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[RFC3501] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
|
|||
|
4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Melnikov & Cridland Standards Track [Page 10]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
RFC 5788 IMAP4 Keyword Registry March 2010
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
|
|||
|
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
|
|||
|
May 2008.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
6.2. Informative References
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[RFC3503] Melnikov, A., "Message Disposition Notification (MDN)
|
|||
|
profile for Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP)",
|
|||
|
RFC 3503, March 2003.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
[RFC5550] Cridland, D., Melnikov, A., and S. Maes, "The Internet
|
|||
|
Email to Support Diverse Service Environments (Lemonade)
|
|||
|
Profile", RFC 5550, August 2009.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Authors' Addresses
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alexey Melnikov
|
|||
|
Isode Limited
|
|||
|
5 Castle Business Village
|
|||
|
36 Station Road
|
|||
|
Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2BX
|
|||
|
UK
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
EMail: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com
|
|||
|
URI: http://www.melnikov.ca/
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dave Cridland
|
|||
|
Isode Limited
|
|||
|
5 Castle Business Village
|
|||
|
36 Station Road
|
|||
|
Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2BX
|
|||
|
UK
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
EMail: dave.cridland@isode.com
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Melnikov & Cridland Standards Track [Page 11]
|
|||
|
|