2377353cae
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s-dev@laposte.net>
1964 lines
74 KiB
Plaintext
1964 lines
74 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Network Working Group A. Melnikov, Ed.
|
||
Request for Comments: 4549 Isode Ltd.
|
||
Category: Informational June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
Synchronization Operations for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients
|
||
|
||
Status of This Memo
|
||
|
||
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
|
||
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
|
||
memo is unlimited.
|
||
|
||
Copyright Notice
|
||
|
||
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
|
||
|
||
Abstract
|
||
|
||
This document attempts to address some of the issues involved in
|
||
building a disconnected IMAP4 client. In particular, it deals with
|
||
the issues of what might be called the "driver" portion of the
|
||
synchronization tool: the portion of the code responsible for issuing
|
||
the correct set of IMAP4 commands to synchronize the disconnected
|
||
client in the way that is most likely to make the human who uses the
|
||
disconnected client happy.
|
||
|
||
This note describes different strategies that can be used by
|
||
disconnected clients and shows how to use IMAP protocol in order to
|
||
minimize the time of the synchronization process.
|
||
|
||
This note also lists IMAP extensions that a server should implement
|
||
in order to provide better synchronization facilities to disconnected
|
||
clients.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 1]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
Table of Contents
|
||
|
||
1. Introduction ....................................................3
|
||
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................3
|
||
2. Design Principles ...............................................3
|
||
3. Overall Picture of Synchronization ..............................4
|
||
4. Mailbox Synchronization Steps and Strategies ....................7
|
||
4.1. Checking UID Validity ......................................7
|
||
4.2. Synchronizing Local Changes with the Server ................8
|
||
4.2.1. Uploading Messages to the Mailbox ...................8
|
||
4.2.2. Optimizing "move" and "copy" Operations .............9
|
||
4.2.3. Replaying Local Flag Changes .......................14
|
||
4.2.4. Processing Mailbox Compression (EXPUNGE) Requests ..15
|
||
4.2.5. Closing a Mailbox ..................................17
|
||
4.3. Details of "Normal" Synchronization of a Single Mailbox ...18
|
||
4.3.1. Discovering New Messages and Changes to Old
|
||
Messages ...........................................18
|
||
4.3.2. Searching for "Interesting" Messages. ..............20
|
||
4.3.3. Populating Cache with "Interesting" Messages. ......21
|
||
4.3.4. User-Initiated Synchronization .....................22
|
||
4.4. Special Case: Descriptor-Only Synchronization .............22
|
||
4.5. Special Case: Fast New-Only Synchronization ...............23
|
||
4.6. Special Case: Blind FETCH .................................23
|
||
5. Implementation Considerations ..................................24
|
||
5.1. Error Recovery during Playback ............................26
|
||
5.2. Quality of Implementation Issues ..........................28
|
||
5.3. Optimizations .............................................28
|
||
6. IMAP Extensions That May Help ..................................30
|
||
6.1. CONDSTORE Extension .......................................30
|
||
7. Security Considerations ........................................33
|
||
8. References .....................................................33
|
||
8.1. Normative References ......................................33
|
||
8.2. Informative References ....................................34
|
||
9. Acknowledgements ...............................................34
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 2]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
1. Introduction
|
||
|
||
Several recommendations presented in this document are generally
|
||
applicable to all types of IMAP clients. However, this document
|
||
tries to concentrate on disconnected mail clients [IMAP-MODEL]. It
|
||
also suggests some IMAP extensions* that should be implemented by
|
||
IMAP servers in order to make the life of disconnected clients
|
||
easier. In particular, the [UIDPLUS] extension was specifically
|
||
designed to streamline certain disconnected operations, like
|
||
expunging, uploading, and copying messages (see Sections 4.2.1,
|
||
4.2.2.1, and 4.2.4).
|
||
|
||
Readers of this document are also strongly advised to read RFC 2683
|
||
[RFC2683].
|
||
|
||
* Note that the functionality provided by the base IMAP protocol
|
||
[IMAP4] is sufficient to perform basic synchronization.
|
||
|
||
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
|
||
|
||
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
|
||
server, respectively. Long lines in examples are broken for
|
||
editorial clarity.
|
||
|
||
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 [KEYWORDS].
|
||
|
||
Let's call an IMAP command idempotent if the result of executing the
|
||
command twice sequentially is the same as the result of executing the
|
||
command just once.
|
||
|
||
2. Design Principles
|
||
|
||
All mailbox state or content information stored on the disconnected
|
||
client should be viewed strictly as a cache of the state of the
|
||
server. The "master" state remains on the server, just as it would
|
||
with an interactive IMAP4 client. The one exception to this rule is
|
||
that information about the state of the disconnected client's cache
|
||
(the state includes flag changes while offline and during scheduled
|
||
message uploads) remains on the disconnected client: that is, the
|
||
IMAP4 server is not responsible for remembering the state of the
|
||
disconnected IMAP4 client.
|
||
|
||
We assume that a disconnected client is a client that, for whatever
|
||
reason, wants to minimize the length of time that it is "on the
|
||
phone" to the IMAP4 server. Often this will be because the client is
|
||
using a dialup connection, possibly with very low bandwidth, but
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 3]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
sometimes it might just be that the human is in a hurry to catch an
|
||
airplane, or some other event beyond our control. Whatever the
|
||
reason, we assume that we must make efficient use of the network
|
||
connection, both in the usual sense (not generating spurious traffic)
|
||
and in the sense that we would prefer not to have the connection
|
||
sitting idle while the client and/or the server is performing
|
||
strictly local computation or I/O. Another, perhaps simpler way of
|
||
stating this is that we assume that network connections are
|
||
"expensive".
|
||
|
||
Practical experience with disconnected mail systems has shown that
|
||
there is no single synchronization strategy that is appropriate for
|
||
all cases. Different humans have different preferences, and the same
|
||
human's preference will vary depending both on external circumstance
|
||
(how much of a hurry the human is in today) and on the value that the
|
||
human places on the messages being transferred. The point here is
|
||
that there is no way that the synchronization program can guess
|
||
exactly what the human wants to do, so the human will have to provide
|
||
some guidance.
|
||
|
||
Taken together, the preceding two principles lead to the conclusion
|
||
that the synchronization program must make its decisions based on
|
||
some kind of guidance provided by the human, by selecting the
|
||
appropriate options in the user interface or through some sort of
|
||
configuration file. Almost certainly, it should not pause for I/O
|
||
with the human in the middle of the synchronization process. The
|
||
human will almost certainly have several different configurations for
|
||
the synchronization program, for different circumstances.
|
||
|
||
Since a disconnected client has no way of knowing what changes might
|
||
have occurred to the mailbox while it was disconnected, message
|
||
numbers are not useful to a disconnected client. All disconnected
|
||
client operations should be performed using UIDs, so that the client
|
||
can be sure that it and the server are talking about the same
|
||
messages during the synchronization process.
|
||
|
||
3. Overall Picture of Synchronization
|
||
|
||
The basic strategy for synchronization is outlined below. Note that
|
||
the real strategy may vary from one application to another or may
|
||
depend on a synchronization mode.
|
||
|
||
a) Process any "actions" that were pending on the client that were
|
||
not associated with any mailbox. (In particular sending messages
|
||
composed offline with SMTP. This is not part of IMAP
|
||
synchronization, but it is mentioned here for completeness.)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 4]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
b) Fetch the current list of "interesting" mailboxes. (The
|
||
disconnected client should allow the user to skip this step
|
||
completely.)
|
||
|
||
c) "Client-to-server synchronization": for each IMAP "action" that
|
||
was pending on the client, do the following:
|
||
|
||
1) If the action implies opening a new mailbox (any operation that
|
||
operates on messages), open the mailbox. Check its UID
|
||
validity value (see Section 4.1 for more details) returned in
|
||
the UIDVALIDITY response code. If the UIDVALIDITY value
|
||
returned by the server differs, the client MUST empty the local
|
||
cache of the mailbox and remove any pending "actions" that
|
||
refer to UIDs in that mailbox (and consider them failed). Note
|
||
that this doesn't affect actions performed on client-generated
|
||
fake UIDs (see Section 5).
|
||
|
||
2) Perform the action. If the action is to delete a mailbox
|
||
(DELETE), make sure that the mailbox is closed first (see also
|
||
Section 3.4.12 of [RFC2683]).
|
||
|
||
d) "Server-to-client synchronization": for each mailbox that requires
|
||
synchronization, do the following:
|
||
|
||
1) Check the mailbox UIDVALIDITY (see Section 4.1 for more
|
||
details) with SELECT/EXAMINE/STATUS.
|
||
|
||
If UIDVALIDITY value returned by the server differs, the client
|
||
MUST
|
||
|
||
* empty the local cache of that mailbox;
|
||
* remove any pending "actions" that refer to UIDs in that
|
||
mailbox and consider them failed; and
|
||
* skip step 2-II.
|
||
|
||
2) Fetch the current "descriptors";
|
||
|
||
I) Discover new messages.
|
||
|
||
II) Discover changes to old messages.
|
||
|
||
3) Fetch the bodies of any "interesting" messages that the client
|
||
doesn't already have.
|
||
|
||
e) Close all open mailboxes not required for further operations (if
|
||
staying online) or disconnect all open connections (if going
|
||
offline).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 5]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
Terms used:
|
||
|
||
"Actions" are queued requests that were made by the human to the
|
||
client's Mail User Agent (MUA) software while the client was
|
||
disconnected.
|
||
|
||
We define "descriptors" as a set of IMAP4 FETCH data items.
|
||
Conceptually, a message's descriptor is that set of information that
|
||
allows the synchronization program to decide what protocol actions
|
||
are necessary to bring the local cache to the desired state for this
|
||
message; since this decision is really up to the human, this
|
||
information probably includes at least a few header fields intended
|
||
for human consumption. Exactly what will constitute a descriptor
|
||
depends on the client implementation. At a minimum, the descriptor
|
||
contains the message's UID and FLAGS. Other likely candidates are
|
||
the RFC822.SIZE, RFC822.HEADER, BODYSTRUCTURE, or ENVELOPE data
|
||
items.
|
||
|
||
Comments:
|
||
|
||
1) The list of actions should be ordered. For example, if the human
|
||
deletes message A1 in mailbox A, then expunges mailbox A, and then
|
||
deletes message A2 in mailbox A, the human will expect that
|
||
message A1 is gone and that message A2 is still present but is now
|
||
deleted.
|
||
|
||
By processing all the actions before proceeding with
|
||
synchronization, we avoid having to compensate for the local MUA's
|
||
changes to the server's state. That is, once we have processed
|
||
all the pending actions, the steps that the client must take to
|
||
synchronize itself will be the same no matter where the changes to
|
||
the server's state originated.
|
||
|
||
2) Steps a and b can be performed in parallel. Alternatively, step a
|
||
can be performed after d.
|
||
|
||
3) On step b, the set of "interesting" mailboxes pretty much has to
|
||
be determined by the human. What mailboxes belong to this set may
|
||
vary between different IMAP4 sessions with the same server,
|
||
client, and human. An interesting mailbox can be a mailbox
|
||
returned by LSUB command (see Section 6.3.9 of [IMAP4]). The
|
||
special mailbox "INBOX" SHOULD be in the default set of mailboxes
|
||
that the client considers interesting. However, providing the
|
||
ability to ignore INBOX for a particular session or client may be
|
||
valuable for some mail filtering strategies.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 6]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
4) On step d-2-II, the client also finds out about changes to the
|
||
flags of messages that the client already has in its local cache,
|
||
and about messages in the local cache that no longer exist on the
|
||
server (i.e., messages that have been expunged).
|
||
|
||
5) "Interesting" messages are those messages that the synchronization
|
||
program thinks the human wants to have cached locally, based on
|
||
the configuration and the data retrieved in step b.
|
||
|
||
6) A disconnected IMAP client is a special case of an IMAP client, so
|
||
it MUST be able to handle any "unexpected" unsolicited responses,
|
||
like EXISTS and EXPUNGE, at any time. The disconnected client MAY
|
||
ignore EXPUNGE response during "client-to-server" synchronization
|
||
phase (step c).
|
||
|
||
The rest of this discussion will focus primarily on the
|
||
synchronization issues for a single mailbox.
|
||
|
||
4. Mailbox Synchronization Steps and Strategies
|
||
|
||
4.1. Checking UID Validity
|
||
|
||
The "UID validity" of a mailbox is a number returned in an
|
||
UIDVALIDITY response code in an OK untagged response at mailbox
|
||
selection time. The UID validity value changes between sessions when
|
||
UIDs fail to persist between sessions.
|
||
|
||
Whenever the client selects a mailbox, the client must compare the
|
||
returned UID validity value with the value stored in the local cache.
|
||
If the UID validity values differ, the UIDs in the client's cache are
|
||
no longer valid. The client MUST then empty the local cache of that
|
||
mailbox and remove any pending "actions" that refer to UIDs in that
|
||
mailbox. The client MAY also issue a warning to the human. The
|
||
client MUST NOT cancel any scheduled uploads (i.e., APPENDs) for the
|
||
mailbox.
|
||
|
||
Note that UIDVALIDITY is not only returned on a mailbox selection.
|
||
The COPYUID and APPENDUID response codes defined in the [UIDPLUS]
|
||
extension (see also 4.2.2) and the UIDVALIDITY STATUS response data
|
||
item also contain a UIDVALIDITY value for some other mailbox. The
|
||
client SHOULD behave as described in the previous paragraph (but it
|
||
should act on the other mailbox's cache), no matter how it obtained
|
||
the UIDVALIDITY value.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 7]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
4.2. Synchronizing Local Changes with the Server
|
||
|
||
4.2.1. Uploading Messages to the Mailbox
|
||
|
||
Two of the most common examples of operations resulting in message
|
||
uploads are:
|
||
|
||
1) Saving a draft message
|
||
|
||
2) Copying a message between remote mailboxes on two different IMAP
|
||
servers or a local mailbox and a remote mailbox.
|
||
|
||
Message upload is performed with the APPEND command. A message
|
||
scheduled to be uploaded has no UID associated with it, as all UIDs
|
||
are assigned by the server. The APPEND command will effectively
|
||
associate a UID with the uploaded message that can be stored in the
|
||
local cache for future reference. However, [IMAP4] doesn't describe
|
||
a simple mechanism to discover the message UID by just performing the
|
||
APPEND command. In order to discover the UID, the client can do one
|
||
of the following:
|
||
|
||
1) Remove the uploaded message from cache. Then, use the mechanism
|
||
described in 4.3 to fetch the information about the uploaded
|
||
message as if it had been uploaded by some other client.
|
||
|
||
2) Try to fetch header information as described in 4.2.2 in order to
|
||
find a message that corresponds to the uploaded message. One
|
||
strategy for doing this is described in 4.2.2.
|
||
|
||
Case 1 describes a not particularly smart client.
|
||
|
||
C: A003 APPEND Drafts (\Seen $MDNSent) {310}
|
||
S: + Ready for literal data
|
||
C: Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 21:52:25 -0800 (PST)
|
||
C: From: Fred Foobar <foobar@blt.example.COM>
|
||
C: Subject: afternoon meeting
|
||
C: To: mooch@owatagu.siam.edu
|
||
C: Message-Id: <B27397-0100000@blt.example.COM>
|
||
C: MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||
C: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
|
||
C:
|
||
C: Hello Joe, do you think we can meet at 3:30 tomorrow?
|
||
C:
|
||
S: A003 OK APPEND Completed
|
||
|
||
Fortunately, there is a simpler way to discover the message UID in
|
||
the presence of the [UIDPLUS] extension:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 8]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
C: A003 APPEND Drafts (\Seen $MDNSent) {310}
|
||
S: + Ready for literal data
|
||
C: Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 21:52:25 -0800 (PST)
|
||
C: From: Fred Foobar <foobar@blt.example.COM>
|
||
C: Subject: afternoon meeting
|
||
C: To: mooch@owatagu.siam.edu
|
||
C: Message-Id: <B27397-0100000@blt.example.COM>
|
||
C: MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||
C: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
|
||
C:
|
||
C: Hello Joe, do you think we can meet at 3:30 tomorrow?
|
||
C:
|
||
S: A003 OK [APPENDUID 1022843275 77712] APPEND completed
|
||
|
||
The UID of the appended message is the second parameter of APPENDUID
|
||
response code.
|
||
|
||
4.2.2. Optimizing "move" and "copy" Operations
|
||
|
||
Practical experience with IMAP and other mailbox access protocols
|
||
that support multiple mailboxes suggests that moving a message from
|
||
one mailbox to another is an extremely common operation.
|
||
|
||
4.2.2.1. Moving a Message between Two Mailboxes on the Same Server
|
||
|
||
In IMAP4, a "move" operation between two mailboxes on the same server
|
||
is really a combination of a COPY operation and a STORE +FLAGS
|
||
(\Deleted) operation. This makes good protocol sense for IMAP, but
|
||
it leaves a simple-minded disconnected client in the silly position
|
||
of deleting and possibly expunging its cached copy of a message, then
|
||
fetching an identical copy via the network.
|
||
|
||
However, the presence of the UIDPLUS extension in the server can
|
||
help:
|
||
|
||
C: A001 UID COPY 567,414 "Interesting Messages"
|
||
S: A001 OK [COPYUID 1022843275 414,567 5:6] Completed
|
||
|
||
This tells the client that the message with UID 414 in the current
|
||
mailbox was successfully copied to the mailbox "Interesting Messages"
|
||
and was given the UID 5, and that the message with UID 567 was given
|
||
the UID 6.
|
||
|
||
In the absence of UIDPLUS extension support in the server, the
|
||
following trick can be used. By including the Message-ID: header and
|
||
the INTERNALDATE data item as part of the descriptor, the client can
|
||
check the descriptor of a "new" message against messages that are
|
||
already in its cache and avoid fetching the extra copy. Of course,
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 9]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
it's possible that the cost of checking to see if the message is
|
||
already in the local cache may exceed the cost of just fetching it,
|
||
so this technique should not be used blindly. If the MUA implements
|
||
a "move" command, it makes special provisions to use this technique
|
||
when it knows that a copy/delete sequence is the result of a "move"
|
||
command.
|
||
|
||
Note that servers are not required (although they are strongly
|
||
encouraged with "SHOULD language") to preserve INTERNALDATE when
|
||
copying messages.
|
||
|
||
Also note that since it's theoretically possible for this algorithm
|
||
to find the wrong message (given sufficiently malignant Message-ID
|
||
headers), implementers should provide a way to disable this
|
||
optimization, both permanently and on a message-by-message basis.
|
||
|
||
Example 1: Copying a message in the absence of UIDPLUS extension.
|
||
|
||
At some point in time the client has fetched the source message and
|
||
some information was cached:
|
||
|
||
C: C021 UID FETCH <uids> (BODY.PEEK[] INTERNALDATE FLAGS)
|
||
...
|
||
S: * 27 FETCH (UID 123 INTERNALDATE "31-May-2002 05:26:59 -0600"
|
||
FLAGS (\Draft $MDNSent) BODY[] {1036}
|
||
S: ...
|
||
S: Message-Id: <20040903110856.22a127cd@chardonnay>
|
||
S: ...
|
||
S: ...message body...
|
||
S: )
|
||
...
|
||
S: C021 OK fetch completed
|
||
|
||
Later on, the client decides to copy the message:
|
||
|
||
C: C035 UID COPY 123 "Interesting Messages"
|
||
S: C035 OK Completed
|
||
|
||
As the server hasn't provided the COPYUID response code, the client
|
||
tries the optimization described above:
|
||
|
||
C: C036 SELECT "Interesting Messages"
|
||
...
|
||
C: C037 UID SEARCH ON 31-May-2002 HEADER
|
||
"Message-Id" "20040903110856.22a127cd@chardonnay"
|
||
S: SEARCH 12368
|
||
S: C037 OK completed
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 10]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
Note that if the server has returned multiple UIDs in the SEARCH
|
||
response, the client MUST NOT use any of the returned UID.
|
||
|
||
4.2.2.2. Moving a Message from a Remote Mailbox to a Local
|
||
|
||
Moving a message from a remote mailbox to a local is done with FETCH
|
||
(that includes FLAGS and INTERNALDATE) followed by UID STORE <uid>
|
||
+FLAGS.SILENT (\Deleted):
|
||
|
||
C: A003 UID FETCH 123 (BODY.PEEK[] INTERNALDATE FLAGS)
|
||
S: * 27 FETCH (UID 123 INTERNALDATE "31-May-2002 05:26:59 -0600"
|
||
FLAGS (\Seen $MDNSent) BODY[]
|
||
S: ...message body...
|
||
S: )
|
||
S: A003 OK UID FETCH completed
|
||
C: A004 UID STORE <uid> +FLAGS.SILENT (\Deleted)
|
||
S: A004 STORE completed
|
||
|
||
Note that there is no reason to fetch the message during
|
||
synchronization if it's already in the client's cache. Also, the
|
||
client SHOULD preserve delivery date in the local cache.
|
||
|
||
4.2.2.3. Moving a Message from a Local Mailbox to a Remote
|
||
|
||
Moving a message from a local mailbox to a remote is done with
|
||
APPEND:
|
||
|
||
C: A003 APPEND Drafts (\Seen $MDNSent) "31-May-2002 05:26:59 -0600"
|
||
{310}
|
||
S: + Ready for literal data
|
||
C: Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 21:52:25 -0800 (PST)
|
||
C: From: Fred Foobar <foobar@blt.example.COM>
|
||
C: Subject: afternoon meeting
|
||
C: To: mooch@owatagu.siam.edu
|
||
C: Message-Id: <B27397-0100000@blt.example.COM>
|
||
C: MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||
C: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
|
||
C:
|
||
C: Hello Joe, do you think we can meet at 3:30 tomorrow?
|
||
C:
|
||
S: A003 OK [APPENDUID 1022843275 77712] completed
|
||
|
||
The client SHOULD specify the delivery date from the local cache in
|
||
the APPEND.
|
||
|
||
If the [LITERAL+] extension is available, the client can save a
|
||
round-trip*:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 11]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
C: A003 APPEND Drafts (\Seen $MDNSent) "31-May-2002 05:26:59 -0600"
|
||
{310+}
|
||
C: Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 21:52:25 -0800 (PST)
|
||
C: From: Fred Foobar <foobar@blt.example.COM>
|
||
C: Subject: afternoon meeting
|
||
C: To: mooch@owatagu.siam.edu
|
||
C: Message-Id: <B27397-0100000@blt.example.COM>
|
||
C: MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||
C: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
|
||
C:
|
||
C: Hello Joe, do you think we can meet at 3:30 tomorrow?
|
||
C:
|
||
S: A003 OK [APPENDUID 1022843275 77712] completed
|
||
|
||
* Note that there is a risk that the server will reject the message
|
||
due to its size. If this happens, the client will waste bandwidth
|
||
transferring the whole message. If the client wouldn't have used
|
||
the LITERAL+, this could have been avoided:
|
||
|
||
C: A003 APPEND Drafts (\Seen $MDNSent) "31-May-2004 05:26:59 -0600"
|
||
{16777215}
|
||
S: A003 NO Sorry, message is too big
|
||
|
||
4.2.2.4. Moving a Message between Two Mailboxes on Different Servers
|
||
|
||
Moving a message between two mailbox on two different servers is a
|
||
combination of the operations described in 4.2.2.2 followed by the
|
||
operations described in 4.2.2.3.
|
||
|
||
4.2.2.5. Uploading Multiple Messages to a Remote Mailbox with
|
||
MULTIAPPEND
|
||
|
||
When there is a need to upload multiple messages to a remote mailbox
|
||
(e.g., as per 4.2.2.3), the presence of certain IMAP extensions may
|
||
significantly improve performance. One of them is [MULTIAPPEND].
|
||
|
||
For some mail stores, opening a mailbox for appending might be
|
||
expensive. [MULTIAPPEND] tells the server to open the mailbox once
|
||
(instead of opening and closing it "n" times per "n" messages to be
|
||
uploaded) and to keep it open while a group of messages is being
|
||
uploaded to the server.
|
||
|
||
Also, if the server supports both [MULTIAPPEND] and [LITERAL+]
|
||
extensions, the entire upload is accomplished in a single
|
||
command/response round-trip.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 12]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
Note: Client implementers should be aware that [MULTIAPPEND] performs
|
||
append of multiple messages atomically. This means, for example, if
|
||
there is not enough space to save "n"-th message (or the message has
|
||
invalid structure and is rejected by the server) after successful
|
||
upload of "n-1" messages, the whole upload operation fails, and no
|
||
message will be saved in the mailbox. Although this behavior might
|
||
be desirable in certain situations, it might not be what you want.
|
||
Otherwise, the client should use the regular APPEND command (Section
|
||
4.2.2.3), possibly utilizing the [LITERAL+] extension. See also
|
||
Section 5.1 for discussions about error recovery.
|
||
|
||
Note: MULTIAPPEND can be used together with the UIDPLUS extension in
|
||
a way similar to what was described in Section 4.2.1. [MULTIAPPEND]
|
||
extends the syntax of the APPENDUID response code to allow for
|
||
multiple message UIDs in the second parameter.
|
||
|
||
Example 2:
|
||
|
||
This example demonstrates the use of MULTIAPPEND together with
|
||
UIDPLUS (synchronization points where the client waits for
|
||
confirmations from the server are marked with "<--->"):
|
||
|
||
C: A003 APPEND Jan-2002 (\Seen $MDNSent) "31-May-2002 05:26:59 -0600"
|
||
{310}
|
||
<--->
|
||
S: + Ready for literal data
|
||
C: Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 21:52:25 -0800 (PST)
|
||
C: From: Fred Foobar <foobar@blt.example.COM>
|
||
C: Subject: afternoon meeting
|
||
C: To: mooch@owatagu.siam.edu
|
||
C: Message-Id: <B27397-0100000@blt.example.COM>
|
||
C: MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||
C: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
|
||
C:
|
||
C: Hello Joe, do you think we can meet at 3:30 tomorrow?
|
||
C: (\Seen) " 1-Jun-2002 22:43:04 -0800" {286}
|
||
<--->
|
||
S: + Ready for literal data
|
||
C: Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 22:43:04 -0800 (PST)
|
||
C: From: Joe Mooch <mooch@OWaTaGu.siam.EDU>
|
||
C: Subject: Re: afternoon meeting
|
||
C: To: foobar@blt.example.com
|
||
C: Message-Id: <a0434793874930@OWaTaGu.siam.EDU>
|
||
C: MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||
C: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
|
||
C:
|
||
C: 3:30 is fine with me.
|
||
C:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 13]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
S: A003 OK [APPENDUID 1022843275 77712,77713] completed
|
||
|
||
The upload takes 3 round-trips.
|
||
|
||
Example 3:
|
||
|
||
In this example, Example 2 was modified for the case when the server
|
||
supports MULTIAPPEND, LITERAL+, and UIDPLUS. The upload takes only 1
|
||
round-trip.
|
||
|
||
C: A003 APPEND Jan-2002 (\Seen $MDNSent) "31-May-2002 05:26:59 -0600"
|
||
{310+}
|
||
C: Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 21:52:25 -0800 (PST)
|
||
C: From: Fred Foobar <foobar@blt.example.COM>
|
||
C: Subject: afternoon meeting
|
||
C: To: mooch@owatagu.siam.edu
|
||
C: Message-Id: <B27397-0100000@blt.example.COM>
|
||
C: MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||
C: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
|
||
C:
|
||
C: Hello Joe, do you think we can meet at 3:30 tomorrow?
|
||
C: (\Seen) " 1-Jun-2002 22:43:04 -0800" {286+}
|
||
C: Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 22:43:04 -0800 (PST)
|
||
C: From: Joe Mooch <mooch@OWaTaGu.siam.EDU>
|
||
C: Subject: Re: afternoon meeting
|
||
C: To: foobar@blt.example.com
|
||
C: Message-Id: <a0434793874930@OWaTaGu.siam.EDU>
|
||
C: MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||
C: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
|
||
C:
|
||
C: 3:30 is fine with me.
|
||
C:
|
||
S: A003 OK [APPENDUID 1022843275 77712,77713] completed
|
||
|
||
4.2.3. Replaying Local Flag Changes
|
||
|
||
The disconnected client uses the STORE command to synchronize local
|
||
flag state with the server. The disconnected client SHOULD use
|
||
+FLAGS.SILENT or -FLAGS.SILENT in order to set or unset flags
|
||
modified by the user while offline. The FLAGS form MUST NOT be used,
|
||
as there is a risk that this will overwrite flags on the server that
|
||
have been changed by some other client.
|
||
|
||
Example 4:
|
||
|
||
For the message with UID 15, the disconnected client stores the
|
||
following flags \Seen and $Highest. The flags were modified on the
|
||
server by some other client: \Seen, \Answered, and $Highest. While
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 14]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
offline, the user requested that the $Highest flags be removed and
|
||
that the \Deleted flag be added. The flag synchronization sequence
|
||
for the message should look like:
|
||
|
||
C: A001 UID STORE 15 +FLAGS.SILENT (\Deleted)
|
||
S: A001 STORE completed
|
||
C: A002 UID STORE 15 -FLAGS.SILENT ($Highest)
|
||
S: A002 STORE completed
|
||
|
||
If the disconnected client is able to store an additional binary
|
||
state information (or a piece of information that can take a value
|
||
from a predefined set of values) in the local cache of an IMAP
|
||
mailbox or in a local mailbox (e.g., message priority), and if the
|
||
server supports storing of arbitrary keywords, the client MUST use
|
||
keywords to store this state on the server.
|
||
|
||
Example 5:
|
||
|
||
Imagine a speculative mail client that can mark a message as one of
|
||
work-related ($Work), personal ($Personal), or spam ($Spam). In
|
||
order to mark a message as personal, the client issues:
|
||
|
||
C: A001 UID STORE 15 +FLAGS.SILENT ($Personal)
|
||
S: A001 STORE completed
|
||
C: A002 UID STORE 15 -FLAGS.SILENT ($Work $Spam)
|
||
S: A002 STORE completed
|
||
|
||
In order to mark the message as not work, not personal and not spam,
|
||
the client issues:
|
||
|
||
C: A003 UID STORE 15 -FLAGS.SILENT ($Personal $Work $Spam)
|
||
S: A003 STORE completed
|
||
|
||
4.2.4. Processing Mailbox Compression (EXPUNGE) Requests
|
||
|
||
A naive disconnected client implementation that supports compressing
|
||
a mailbox while offline may decide to issue an EXPUNGE command to the
|
||
server in order to expunge messages marked \Deleted. The problem
|
||
with this command during synchronization is that it permanently
|
||
erases all messages with the \Deleted flag set, i.e., even those
|
||
messages that were marked as \Deleted on the server while the user
|
||
was offline. Doing this might result in an unpleasant surprise for
|
||
the user.
|
||
|
||
Fortunately the [UIDPLUS] extension can help in this case as well.
|
||
The extension introduces UID EXPUNGE command, that, unlike EXPUNGE,
|
||
takes a UID set parameter, that lists UIDs of all messages that can
|
||
be expunged. When processing this command the server erases only
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 15]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
messages with \Deleted flag listed in the UID list. Thus, messages
|
||
not listed in the UID set will not be expunged even if they have the
|
||
\Deleted flag set.
|
||
|
||
Example 6:
|
||
|
||
While the user was offline, 3 messages with UIDs 7, 27, and 65 were
|
||
marked \Deleted when the user requested to compress the open mailbox.
|
||
Another client marked a message \Deleted on the server (UID 34).
|
||
During synchronization, the disconnected client issues:
|
||
|
||
C: A001 UID EXPUNGE 7,27,65
|
||
S: * ... EXPUNGE
|
||
S: * ... EXPUNGE
|
||
S: * ... EXPUNGE
|
||
S: A001 UID EXPUNGE completed
|
||
|
||
If another client issues UID SEARCH DELETED command (to find all
|
||
messages with the \Deleted flag) before and after the UID EXPUNGE, it
|
||
will get:
|
||
|
||
Before:
|
||
|
||
C: B001 UID SEARCH DELETED
|
||
S: * SEARCH 65 34 27 7
|
||
S: B001 UID SEARCH completed
|
||
|
||
After:
|
||
|
||
C: B002 UID SEARCH DELETED
|
||
S: * SEARCH 34
|
||
S: B002 UID SEARCH completed
|
||
|
||
In the absence of the [UIDPLUS] extension, the following sequence of
|
||
commands can be used as an approximation. Note: It's possible for
|
||
another client to mark additional messages as deleted while this
|
||
sequence is being performed. In this case, these additional messages
|
||
will be expunged as well.
|
||
|
||
1) Find all messages marked \Deleted on the server.
|
||
|
||
C: A001 UID SEARCH DELETED
|
||
S: * SEARCH 65 34 27 7
|
||
S: A001 UID SEARCH completed
|
||
|
||
2) Find all messages that must not be erased (for the previous
|
||
example the list will consist of the message with UID 34).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 16]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
3) Temporarily remove \Deleted flag on all messages found in step 2.
|
||
|
||
C: A002 UID STORE 34 -FLAGS.SILENT (\Deleted)
|
||
S: A002 UID STORE completed
|
||
|
||
4) Expunge the mailbox.
|
||
|
||
C: A003 EXPUNGE
|
||
S: * 20 EXPUNGE
|
||
S: * 7 EXPUNGE
|
||
S: * 1 EXPUNGE
|
||
S: A003 EXPUNGE completed
|
||
|
||
Here, the message with UID 7 has message number 1, with UID 27 has
|
||
message number 7, and with UID 65 has message number 20.
|
||
|
||
5) Restore \Deleted flag on all messages found when performing step
|
||
2.
|
||
|
||
C: A004 UID STORE 34 +FLAGS.SILENT (\Deleted)
|
||
S: A004 UID STORE completed
|
||
|
||
4.2.5. Closing a Mailbox
|
||
|
||
When the disconnected client has to close a mailbox, it should not
|
||
use the CLOSE command, because CLOSE does a silent EXPUNGE. (Section
|
||
4.2.4 explains why EXPUNGE should not be used by a disconnected
|
||
client.) It is safe to use CLOSE only if the mailbox was opened with
|
||
EXAMINE.
|
||
|
||
If the mailbox was opened with SELECT, the client can use one of the
|
||
following commands to implicitly close the mailbox and prevent the
|
||
silent expunge:
|
||
|
||
1) UNSELECT - This is a command described in [UNSELECT] that works as
|
||
CLOSE, but doesn't cause the silent EXPUNGE. This command is
|
||
supported by the server if it reports UNSELECT in its CAPABILITY
|
||
list.
|
||
|
||
2) SELECT <another_mailbox> - SELECT causes implicit CLOSE without
|
||
EXPUNGE.
|
||
|
||
3) If the client intends to issue LOGOUT after closing the mailbox,
|
||
it may just issue LOGOUT, because LOGOUT causes implicit CLOSE
|
||
without EXPUNGE as well.
|
||
|
||
4) SELECT <non_existing_mailbox> - If the client knows a mailbox that
|
||
doesn't exist or can't be selected, it MAY SELECT it.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 17]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
If the client opened the mailbox with SELECT and just wants to avoid
|
||
implicit EXPUNGE without closing the mailbox, it may also use the
|
||
following:
|
||
|
||
5) EXAMINE <mailbox> - Reselect the same mailbox in read-only mode.
|
||
|
||
4.3. Details of "Normal" Synchronization of a Single Mailbox
|
||
|
||
The most common form of synchronization is where the human trusts the
|
||
integrity of the client's copy of the state of a particular mailbox
|
||
and simply wants to bring the client's cache up to date so that it
|
||
accurately reflects the mailbox's current state on the server.
|
||
|
||
4.3.1. Discovering New Messages and Changes to Old Messages
|
||
|
||
Let <lastseenuid> represent the highest UID that the client knows
|
||
about in this mailbox. Since UIDs are allocated in strictly
|
||
ascending order, this is simply the UID of the last message in the
|
||
mailbox that the client knows about. Let <lastseenuid+1> represent
|
||
<lastseenuid>'s UID plus one. Let <descriptors> represent a list
|
||
consisting of all the FETCH data item items that the implementation
|
||
considers part of the descriptor; at a minimum this is just the FLAGS
|
||
data item, but it usually also includes BODYSTRUCTURE and
|
||
RFC822.SIZE. At this step, <descriptors> SHOULD NOT include RFC822.
|
||
|
||
With no further information, the client can issue the following two
|
||
commands:
|
||
|
||
tag1 UID FETCH <lastseenuid+1>:* <descriptors>
|
||
tag2 UID FETCH 1:<lastseenuid> FLAGS
|
||
|
||
The first command will request some information about "new" messages
|
||
(i.e., messages received by the server since the last
|
||
synchronization). It will also allow the client to build a message
|
||
number to UID map (only for new messages). The second command allows
|
||
the client to
|
||
|
||
1) update cached flags for old messages;
|
||
|
||
2) find out which old messages got expunged; and
|
||
|
||
3) build a mapping between message numbers and UIDs (for old
|
||
messages).
|
||
|
||
The order here is significant. We want the server to start returning
|
||
the list of new message descriptors as fast as it can, so that the
|
||
client can start issuing more FETCH commands, so we start out by
|
||
asking for the descriptors of all the messages we know the client
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 18]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
cannot possibly have cached yet. The second command fetches the
|
||
information we need to determine what changes may have occurred to
|
||
messages that the client already has cached. Note that the former
|
||
command should only be issued if the UIDNEXT value cached by the
|
||
client differs from the one returned by the server. Once the client
|
||
has issued these two commands, there's nothing more the client can do
|
||
with this mailbox until the responses to the first command start
|
||
arriving. A clever synchronization program might use this time to
|
||
fetch its local cache state from disk or to start the process of
|
||
synchronizing another mailbox.
|
||
|
||
The following is an example of the first FETCH:
|
||
|
||
C: A011 UID fetch 131:* (FLAGS BODYSTRUCTURE INTERNALDATE
|
||
RFC822.SIZE)
|
||
|
||
Note 1: The first FETCH may result in the server's sending a huge
|
||
volume of data. A smart disconnected client should use message
|
||
ranges (see also Section 3.2.1.2 of [RFC2683]), so that the user is
|
||
able to execute a different operation between fetching information
|
||
for a group of new messages.
|
||
|
||
Example 7:
|
||
|
||
Knowing the new UIDNEXT returned by the server on SELECT or EXAMINE
|
||
(<uidnext>), the client can split the UID range
|
||
<lastseenuid+1>:<uidnext> into groups, e.g., 100 messages. After
|
||
that, the client can issue:
|
||
|
||
C: A011 UID fetch <lastseenuid+1>:<lastseenuid+100>
|
||
(FLAGS BODYSTRUCTURE INTERNALDATE RFC822.SIZE)
|
||
...
|
||
C: A012 UID fetch <lastseenuid+101>:<lastseenuid+200>
|
||
(FLAGS BODYSTRUCTURE INTERNALDATE RFC822.SIZE)
|
||
...
|
||
...
|
||
C: A0FF UID fetch <lastseenuid+901>:<uidnext>
|
||
(FLAGS BODYSTRUCTURE INTERNALDATE RFC822.SIZE)
|
||
|
||
Note that unless a SEARCH command is issued, it is impossible to
|
||
determine how many messages will fall into a subrange, as UIDs are
|
||
not necessarily contiguous.
|
||
|
||
Note 2: The client SHOULD ignore any unsolicited EXPUNGE responses
|
||
received during the first FETCH command. EXPUNGE responses contain
|
||
message numbers that are useless to a client that doesn't have the
|
||
message-number-to-UID translation table.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 19]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
The second FETCH command will result in zero or more untagged fetch
|
||
responses. Each response will have a corresponding UID FETCH data
|
||
item. All messages that didn't have a matching untagged FETCH
|
||
response MUST be removed from the local cache.
|
||
|
||
For example, if the <lastseenuid> had a value 15000 and the local
|
||
cache contained 3 messages with the UIDs 12, 777, and 14999,
|
||
respectively, then after receiving the following responses from the
|
||
server, the client must remove the message with UID 14999 from its
|
||
local cache.
|
||
|
||
S: * 1 FETCH (UID 12 FLAGS (\Seen))
|
||
S: * 2 FETCH (UID 777 FLAGS (\Answered \Deleted))
|
||
|
||
Note 3: If the client is not interested in flag changes (i.e., the
|
||
client only wants to know which old messages are still on the
|
||
server), the second FETCH command can be substituted with:
|
||
|
||
tag2 UID SEARCH UID 1:<lastseenuid>
|
||
|
||
This command will generate less traffic. However, an implementor
|
||
should be aware that in order to build the mapping table from message
|
||
numbers to UIDs, the output of the SEARCH command MUST be sorted
|
||
first, because there is no requirement for a server to return UIDs in
|
||
SEARCH response in any particular order.
|
||
|
||
4.3.2. Searching for "Interesting" Messages.
|
||
|
||
This step is performed entirely on the client (from the information
|
||
received in the step described in 4.3.1), entirely on the server, or
|
||
on some combination of both. The decision on what is an
|
||
"interesting" message is up to the client software and the human.
|
||
One easy criterion that should probably be implemented in any client
|
||
is whether the message is "too big" for automatic retrieval, where
|
||
"too big" is a parameter defined in the client's configuration.
|
||
|
||
Another commonly used criterion is the age of a message. For
|
||
example, the client may choose to download only messages received in
|
||
the last week (in this case, <date> would be today's date minus 7
|
||
days):
|
||
|
||
tag3 UID SEARCH UID <uidset> SINCE <date>
|
||
|
||
Keep in mind that a date search disregards time and time zone. The
|
||
client can avoid doing this search if it specified INTERNALDATE in
|
||
<descriptors> on the step described in 4.3.1. If the client did, it
|
||
can perform the local search on its message cache.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 20]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
At this step, the client also decides what kind of information about
|
||
a particular message to fetch from the server. In particular, even
|
||
for a message that is considered "too big", the client MAY choose to
|
||
fetch some part(s) of it. For example, if the message is a
|
||
multipart/mixed containing a text part and a MPEG attachment, there
|
||
is no reason for the client not to fetch the text part. The decision
|
||
of which part should or should not be fetched can be based on the
|
||
information received in the BODYSTRUCTURE FETCH response data item
|
||
(i.e., if BODYSTRUCTURE was included in <descriptors> on the step
|
||
described in 4.3.1).
|
||
|
||
4.3.3. Populating Cache with "Interesting" Messages.
|
||
|
||
Once the client has found out which messages are "interesting", it
|
||
can start issuing appropriate FETCH commands for "interesting"
|
||
messages or parts thereof.
|
||
|
||
Note that fetching a message into the disconnected client's local
|
||
cache does NOT imply that the human has (or even will) read the
|
||
message. Thus, the synchronization program for a disconnected client
|
||
should always be careful to use the .PEEK variants of the FETCH data
|
||
items that implicitly set the \Seen flag.
|
||
|
||
Once the last descriptor has arrived and the last FETCH command has
|
||
been issued, the client simply needs to process the incoming fetch
|
||
items and use them to update the local message cache.
|
||
|
||
In order to avoid deadlock problems, the client must give processing
|
||
of received messages priority over issuing new FETCH commands during
|
||
this synchronization process. This may necessitate temporary local
|
||
queuing of FETCH requests that cannot be issued without causing a
|
||
deadlock. In order to achieve the best use of the "expensive"
|
||
network connection, the client will almost certainly need to pay
|
||
careful attention to any flow-control information that it can obtain
|
||
from the underlying transport connection (usually a TCP connection).
|
||
|
||
Note: The requirement stated in the previous paragraph might result
|
||
in an unpleasant user experience, if followed blindly. For example,
|
||
the user might be unwilling to wait for the client to finish
|
||
synchronization before starting to process the user's requests. A
|
||
smart disconnected client should allow the user to perform requested
|
||
operations in between IMAP commands that are part of the
|
||
synchronization process. See also Note 1 in Section 4.3.1.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 21]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
Example 8:
|
||
|
||
After fetching a message BODYSTRUCTURE, the client discovers a
|
||
complex MIME message. Then, it decides to fetch MIME headers of the
|
||
nested MIME messages and some body parts.
|
||
|
||
C: A011 UID fetch 11 (BODYSTRUCTURE)
|
||
S: ...
|
||
C: A012 UID fetch 11 (BODY[HEADER] BODY[1.MIME] BODY[1.1.MIME]
|
||
BODY[1.2.MIME] BODY[2.MIME] BODY[3.MIME] BODY[4.MIME]
|
||
BODY[5.MIME] BODY[6.MIME] BODY[7.MIME] BODY[8.MIME] BODY[9.MIME]
|
||
BODY[10.MIME] BODY[11.MIME] BODY[12.MIME] BODY[13.MIME]
|
||
BODY[14.MIME] BODY[15.MIME] BODY[16.MIME] BODY[17.MIME]
|
||
BODY[18.MIME] BODY[19.MIME] BODY[20.MIME] BODY[21.MIME])
|
||
S: ...
|
||
C: A013 UID fetch 11 (BODY[1.1] BODY[1.2])
|
||
S: ...
|
||
C: A014 UID fetch 11 (BODY[3] BODY[4] BODY[5] BODY[6] BODY[7] BODY[8]
|
||
BODY[9] BODY[10] BODY[11] BODY[13] BODY[14] BODY[15] BODY[16]
|
||
BODY[21])
|
||
S: ...
|
||
|
||
4.3.4. User-Initiated Synchronization
|
||
|
||
After the client has finished the main synchronization process as
|
||
described in Sections 4.3.1-4.3.3, the user may optionally request
|
||
additional synchronization steps while the client is still online.
|
||
This is not any different from the process described in Sections
|
||
4.3.2 and 4.3.3.
|
||
|
||
Typical examples are:
|
||
|
||
1) fetch all messages selected in UI.
|
||
2) fetch all messages marked as \Flagged on the server.
|
||
|
||
4.4. Special Case: Descriptor-Only Synchronization
|
||
|
||
For some mailboxes, fetching the descriptors might be the entire
|
||
synchronization step. Practical experience with IMAP has shown that
|
||
a certain class of mailboxes (e.g., "archival" mailboxes) are used
|
||
primarily for long-term storage of important messages that the human
|
||
wants to have instantly available on demand but does not want
|
||
cluttering up the disconnected client's cache at any other time.
|
||
Messages in this kind of mailbox would be fetched exclusively by
|
||
explicit actions queued by the local MUA. Thus, the only
|
||
synchronization desirable on this kind of mailbox is fetching enough
|
||
descriptor information for the user to be able to identify messages
|
||
for subsequent download.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 22]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
Special mailboxes that receive messages from a high volume, low
|
||
priority mailing list might also be in this category, at least when
|
||
the human is in a hurry.
|
||
|
||
4.5. Special Case: Fast New-Only Synchronization
|
||
|
||
In some cases, the human might be in such a hurry that he or she
|
||
doesn't care about changes to old messages, just about new messages.
|
||
In this case, the client can skip the UID FETCH command that obtains
|
||
the flags and UIDs for old messages (1:<lastseenuid>).
|
||
|
||
4.6. Special Case: Blind FETCH
|
||
|
||
In some cases, the human may know (for whatever reason) that he or
|
||
she always wants to fetch any new messages in a particular mailbox,
|
||
unconditionally. In this case, the client can just fetch the
|
||
messages themselves, rather than just the descriptors, by using a
|
||
command like:
|
||
|
||
tag1 UID FETCH <lastseenuid+1>:* (FLAGS BODY.PEEK[])
|
||
|
||
Note that this example ignores the fact that the messages can be
|
||
arbitrary long. The disconnected client MUST always check for
|
||
message size before downloading, unless explicitly told otherwise. A
|
||
well-behaved client should instead use something like the following:
|
||
|
||
1) Issue "tag1 UID FETCH <lastseenuid+1>:* (FLAGS RFC822.SIZE)".
|
||
|
||
2) From the message sizes returned in step 1, construct UID set
|
||
<required_messages>.
|
||
|
||
3) Issue "tag2 UID FETCH <required_messages> (BODY.PEEK[])".
|
||
|
||
or
|
||
|
||
1) Issue "tag1 UID FETCH <lastseenuid+1>:* (FLAGS)".
|
||
|
||
2) Construct UID set <old_uids> from the responses of step 1.
|
||
|
||
3) Issue "tag2 SEARCH UID <old_uids> SMALLER <message_limit>".
|
||
Construct UID set <required_messages> from the result of the
|
||
SEARCH command.
|
||
|
||
4) Issue "tag3 UID FETCH <required_messages> (BODY.PEEK[])".
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 23]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
or
|
||
|
||
1) Issue "tag1 UID FETCH <lastseenuid+1>:* (FLAGS
|
||
BODY.PEEK[]<0.<length>>)", where <length> should be replaced with
|
||
the maximal message size the client is willing to download.
|
||
|
||
Note: In response to such a command, the server will only return
|
||
partial data if the message is longer than <length>. It will
|
||
return the full message data for any message whose size is smaller
|
||
than or equal to <length>. In the former case, the client will
|
||
not be able to extract the full MIME structure of the message from
|
||
the truncated data, so the client should include BODYSTRUCTURE in
|
||
the UID FETCH command as well.
|
||
|
||
5. Implementation Considerations
|
||
|
||
Below are listed some common implementation pitfalls that should be
|
||
considered when implementing a disconnected client.
|
||
|
||
1) Implementing fake UIDs on the client.
|
||
|
||
A message scheduled to be uploaded has no UID, as UIDs are
|
||
selected by the server. The client may implement fake UIDs
|
||
internally in order to reference not-yet-uploaded messages in
|
||
further operations. (For example, a message could be scheduled to
|
||
be uploaded, but subsequently marked as deleted or copied to
|
||
another mailbox). Here, the client MUST NOT under any
|
||
circumstances send these fake UIDs to the server. Also, client
|
||
implementers should be reminded that according to [IMAP4] a UID is
|
||
a 32-bit unsigned integer excluding 0. So, both 4294967295 and
|
||
2147483648 are valid UIDs, and 0 and -1 are both invalid. Some
|
||
disconnected mail clients have been known to send negative numbers
|
||
(e.g., "-1") as message UIDs to servers during synchronization.
|
||
|
||
Situation 1: The user starts composing a new message, edits it,
|
||
saves it, continues to edit it, and saves it again.
|
||
|
||
A disconnected client may record in its replay log (log of
|
||
operations to be replayed on the server during synchronization)
|
||
the sequence of operations as shown below. For the purpose of
|
||
this situation, we assume that all draft messages are stored in
|
||
the mailbox called Drafts on an IMAP server. We will also use the
|
||
following conventions: <old_uid> is the UID of the intermediate
|
||
version of the draft when it was saved for the first time. This
|
||
is a fake UID generated on the client. <new_uid> is the UID of
|
||
the final version of the draft. This is another fake UID
|
||
generated on the client.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 24]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
1) APPEND Drafts (\Seen $MDNSent \Drafts) {<nnn>}
|
||
...first version of the message follows...
|
||
|
||
2) APPEND Drafts (\Seen $MDNSent \Drafts) {<mmm>}
|
||
...final version of the message follows...
|
||
|
||
3) STORE <old_uid> +FLAGS (\Deleted)
|
||
|
||
Step 1 corresponds to the first attempt to save the draft message,
|
||
step 2 corresponds to the second attempt to save the draft
|
||
message, and step 3 deletes the first version of the draft message
|
||
saved in step 1.
|
||
|
||
A naive disconnected client may send the command in step 3 without
|
||
replacing the fake client generated <old_uid> with the value
|
||
returned by the server in step 1. A server will probably reject
|
||
this command, which will make the client believe that the
|
||
synchronization sequence has failed.
|
||
|
||
2) Section 5.1 discusses common implementation errors related to
|
||
error recovery during playback.
|
||
|
||
3) Don't assume that the disconnected client is the only client used
|
||
by the user.
|
||
|
||
Situation 2: Some clients may use the \Deleted flag as an
|
||
indicator that the message should not appear in the user's view.
|
||
Usage of the \Deleted flag for this purpose is not safe, as other
|
||
clients (e.g., online clients) might EXPUNGE the mailbox at any
|
||
time.
|
||
|
||
4) Beware of data dependencies between synchronization operations.
|
||
|
||
It might be very tempting for a client writer to perform some
|
||
optimizations on the playback log. Such optimizations might
|
||
include removing redundant operations (for example, see
|
||
optimization 2 in Section 5.3), or their reordering.
|
||
|
||
It is not always safe to reorder or remove redundant operations
|
||
during synchronization because some operations may have
|
||
dependencies (as Situation 3 demonstrates). So, if in doubt,
|
||
don't do this.
|
||
|
||
Situation 3: The user copies a message out of a mailbox and then
|
||
deletes the mailbox.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 25]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
C: A001 SELECT Old-Mail
|
||
S: ...
|
||
C: A002 UID COPY 111 ToDo
|
||
S: A002 OK [COPYUID 1022843345 111 94] Copy completed
|
||
...
|
||
C: A015 CLOSE
|
||
S: A015 OK Completed
|
||
C: A016 DELETE Old-Mail
|
||
S: A016 OK Mailbox deletion completed successfully
|
||
|
||
If the client performs DELETE (tag A016) first and COPY (tag A002)
|
||
second, then the COPY fails. Also, the message that the user so
|
||
carefully copied into another mailbox has been lost.
|
||
|
||
5.1. Error Recovery during Playback
|
||
|
||
Error recovery during synchronization is one of the trickiest parts
|
||
to get right. Below, we will discuss certain error conditions and
|
||
suggest possible choices for handling them.
|
||
|
||
1) Lost connection to the server.
|
||
|
||
The client MUST remember the current position in the playback
|
||
(replay) log and replay it starting from the interrupted operation
|
||
(the last command issued by the client, but not acknowledged by
|
||
the server) the next time it successfully connects to the same
|
||
server. If the connection was lost while executing a non-
|
||
idempotent IMAP command (see the definition in Section 1), then
|
||
when the client is reconnected, it MUST make sure that the
|
||
interrupted command was indeed not executed. If it wasn't
|
||
executed, the client must restart playback from the interrupted
|
||
command, otherwise from the following command.
|
||
|
||
Upon reconnect, care must be taken in order to properly reapply
|
||
logical operations that are represented by multiple IMAP commands,
|
||
e.g., UID EXPUNGE emulation when UID EXPUNGE is not supported by
|
||
the server (see Section 4.2.4).
|
||
|
||
Once the client detects that the connection to the server was
|
||
lost, it MUST stop replaying its log. There are existing
|
||
disconnected clients that, to the great annoyance of users, pop up
|
||
an error dialog for each and every playback operation that fails.
|
||
|
||
2) Copying/appending messages to a mailbox that doesn't exist. (The
|
||
server advertises this condition by sending the TRYCREATE response
|
||
code in the tagged NO response to the APPEND or COPY command.)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 26]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
The user should be advised about the situation and be given one of
|
||
the following choices:
|
||
|
||
a) Try to recreate a mailbox.
|
||
b) Copy/upload messages to another mailbox.
|
||
c) Skip copy/upload.
|
||
d) Abort replay.
|
||
|
||
3) Copying messages from a mailbox that doesn't exist, or renaming or
|
||
getting/changing ACLs [ACL] on a mailbox that doesn't exist:
|
||
|
||
a) Skip operation.
|
||
b) Abort replay.
|
||
|
||
4) Deleting mailboxes or deleting/expunging messages that no longer
|
||
exist.
|
||
|
||
This is actually is not an error and should be ignored by the
|
||
client.
|
||
|
||
5) Performing operations on messages that no longer exist.
|
||
|
||
a) Skip operation.
|
||
b) Abort replay.
|
||
|
||
In the case of changing flags on an expunged message, the client
|
||
should silently ignore the error.
|
||
|
||
Note 1: Several synchronization operations map to multiple IMAP
|
||
commands (for example, "move" described in 4.2.2). The client must
|
||
guarantee atomicity of each such multistep operation. For example,
|
||
when performing a "move" between two mailboxes on the same server, if
|
||
the server is unable to copy messages, the client MUST NOT attempt to
|
||
set the \Deleted flag on the messages being copied, let alone expunge
|
||
them. However, the client MAY consider that move operation to have
|
||
succeeded even if the server was unable to set the \Deleted flag on
|
||
copied messages.
|
||
|
||
Note 2: Many synchronization operations have data dependencies. A
|
||
failed operation must cause all dependent operations to fail as well.
|
||
The client should check this and MUST NOT try to perform all
|
||
dependent operations blindly (unless the user corrected the original
|
||
problem). For example, a message may be scheduled to be appended to
|
||
a mailbox on the server and later on the appended message may be
|
||
copied to another mailbox. If the APPEND operation fails, the client
|
||
must not attempt to COPY the failed message later on. (See also
|
||
Section 5, Situation 3).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 27]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
5.2. Quality of Implementation Issues
|
||
|
||
Below, some quality of implementation issues are listed for
|
||
disconnected clients. They will help to write a disconnected client
|
||
that works correctly, performs synchronization as quickly as possible
|
||
(and thus can make the user happier as well as save her some money),
|
||
and minimizes the server load:
|
||
|
||
1) Don't lose information.
|
||
|
||
No matter how smart your client is in other areas, if it loses
|
||
information, users will get very upset.
|
||
|
||
2) Don't do work unless explicitly asked. Be flexible. Ask all
|
||
questions BEFORE starting synchronization, if possible.
|
||
|
||
3) Minimize traffic.
|
||
|
||
The client MUST NOT issue a command if the client already received
|
||
the required information from the server.
|
||
|
||
The client MUST make use of UIDPLUS extension if it is supported
|
||
by the server.
|
||
|
||
See also optimization 1 in Section 5.3.
|
||
|
||
4) Minimize the number of round-trips.
|
||
|
||
Round-trips kill performance, especially on links with high
|
||
latency. Sections 4.2.2.5 and 5.2 give some advice on how to
|
||
minimize the number of round-trips.
|
||
|
||
See also optimization 1 in Section 5.3.
|
||
|
||
5.3. Optimizations
|
||
|
||
Some useful optimizations are described in this section. A
|
||
disconnected client that supports the recommendations listed below
|
||
will give the user a more pleasant experience.
|
||
|
||
1) The initial OK or PREAUTH responses may contain the CAPABILITY
|
||
response code as described in Section 7.1 of [IMAP4]. This
|
||
response code gives the same information as returned by the
|
||
CAPABILITY command*. A disconnected client that pays attention to
|
||
this response code can avoid sending CAPABILITY command and will
|
||
save a round-trip.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 28]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
* Note: Some servers report in the CAPABILITY response code
|
||
extensions that are only relevant in unauthenticated state or in
|
||
all states. Such servers usually send another CAPABILITY
|
||
response code upon successful authentication using LOGIN or
|
||
AUTHENTICATE command (that negotiates no security layer; see
|
||
Section 6.2.2 of [IMAP4]). The CAPABILITY response code sent
|
||
upon successful LOGIN/AUTHENTICATE might be different from the
|
||
CAPABILITY response code in the initial OK response, as
|
||
extensions only relevant for unauthenticated state will not be
|
||
advertised, and some additional extensions available only in
|
||
authenticated and/or selected state will be.
|
||
|
||
Example 9:
|
||
|
||
S: * OK [CAPABILITY IMAP4REV1 LOGIN-REFERRALS STARTTLS
|
||
AUTH=DIGEST-MD5 AUTH=SRP] imap.example.com ready
|
||
C: 2 authenticate DIGEST-MD5
|
||
S: 2 OK [CAPABILITY IMAP4REV1 IDLE NAMESPACE MAILBOX-REFERRALS SCAN
|
||
SORT THREAD=REFERENCES THREAD=ORDEREDSUBJECT MULTIAPPEND]
|
||
User authenticated (no layer)
|
||
|
||
2) An advanced disconnected client may choose to optimize its replay
|
||
log. For example, there might be some operations that are
|
||
redundant (the list is not complete):
|
||
|
||
a) an EXPUNGE followed by another EXPUNGE or CLOSE;
|
||
b) changing flags (other than the \Deleted flag) on a message that
|
||
gets immediately expunged;
|
||
c) opening and closing the same mailbox.
|
||
|
||
When optimizing, be careful about data dependencies between commands.
|
||
For example, if the client is wishing to optimize (see case b, above)
|
||
|
||
tag1 UID STORE <uid1> +FLAGS (\Deleted)
|
||
...
|
||
tag2 UID STORE <uid1> +FLAGS (\Flagged)
|
||
...
|
||
tag3 UID COPY <uid1> "Backup"
|
||
...
|
||
tag4 UID EXPUNGE <uid1>
|
||
|
||
it can't remove the second UID STORE command because the message is
|
||
being copied before it gets expunged.
|
||
|
||
In general, it might be a good idea to keep mailboxes open during
|
||
synchronization (see case c above), if possible. This can be more
|
||
easily achieved in conjunction with optimization 3 described below.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 29]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
3) Perform some synchronization steps in parallel, if possible.
|
||
|
||
Several synchronization steps don't depend on each other and thus
|
||
can be performed in parallel. Because the server machine is
|
||
usually more powerful than the client machine and can perform some
|
||
operations in parallel, this may speed up the total time of
|
||
synchronization.
|
||
|
||
In order to achieve such parallelization, the client will have to
|
||
open more than one connection to the same server. Client writers
|
||
should not forget about non-trivial cost associated with
|
||
establishing a TCP connection and performing an authentication.
|
||
The disconnected client MUST NOT use one connection per mailbox.
|
||
In most cases, it is sufficient to have two connections. The
|
||
disconnected client SHOULD avoid selecting the same mailbox in
|
||
more than one connection; see Section 3.1.1 of [RFC2683] for more
|
||
details.
|
||
|
||
Any mailbox synchronization MUST start with checking the
|
||
UIDVALIDITY as described in Section 4.1 of this document. The
|
||
client MAY use STATUS command to check UID Validity of a non-
|
||
selected mailbox. This is preferable to opening many connections
|
||
to the same server to perform synchronization of multiple
|
||
mailboxes simultaneously. As described in Section 5.3.10 of
|
||
[IMAP4], this SHOULD NOT be used on the selected mailbox.
|
||
|
||
6. IMAP Extensions That May Help
|
||
|
||
The following extensions can save traffic and/or the number of
|
||
round-trips:
|
||
|
||
1) The use of [UIDPLUS] is discussed in Sections 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.2.1
|
||
and 4.2.4.
|
||
|
||
2) The use of the MULTIAPPEND and LITERAL+ extensions for uploading
|
||
messages is discussed in Section 4.2.2.5.
|
||
|
||
3) Use the CONDSTORE extension (see Section 6.1) for quick flag
|
||
resynchronization.
|
||
|
||
6.1. CONDSTORE Extension
|
||
|
||
An advanced disconnected mail client should use the [CONDSTORE]
|
||
extension when it is supported by the server. The client must cache
|
||
the value from HIGHESTMODSEQ OK response code received on mailbox
|
||
opening and update it whenever the server sends MODSEQ FETCH data
|
||
items.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 30]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
If the client receives NOMODSEQ OK untagged response instead of
|
||
HIGHESTMODSEQ, it MUST remove the last known HIGHESTMODSEQ value from
|
||
its cache and follow the more general instructions in Section 3.
|
||
|
||
When the client opens the mailbox for synchronization, it first
|
||
compares UIDVALIDITY as described in step d-1 in Section 3. If the
|
||
cached UIDVALIDITY value matches the one returned by the server, the
|
||
client MUST compare the cached value of HIGHESTMODSEQ with the one
|
||
returned by the server. If the cached HIGHESTMODSEQ value also
|
||
matches the one returned by the server, then the client MUST NOT
|
||
fetch flags for cached messages, as they hasn't changed. If the
|
||
value on the server is higher than the cached one, the client MAY use
|
||
"SEARCH MODSEQ <cached-value>" to find all messages with flags
|
||
changed since the last time the client was online and had the mailbox
|
||
opened. Alternatively, the client MAY use "FETCH 1:* (FLAGS)
|
||
(CHANGEDSINCE <cached-value>)". The latter operation combines
|
||
searching for changed messages and fetching new information.
|
||
|
||
In all cases, the client still needs to fetch information about new
|
||
messages (if requested by the user) as well as discover which
|
||
messages have been expunged.
|
||
|
||
Step d ("Server-to-client synchronization") in Section 4 in the
|
||
presence of the CONDSTORE extension is amended as follows:
|
||
|
||
d) "Server-to-client synchronization" - For each mailbox that
|
||
requires synchronization, do the following:
|
||
|
||
1a) Check the mailbox UIDVALIDITY (see section 4.1 for more
|
||
details) with SELECT/EXAMINE/STATUS.
|
||
|
||
If the UIDVALIDITY value returned by the server differs, the
|
||
client MUST
|
||
|
||
* empty the local cache of that mailbox;
|
||
* "forget" the cached HIGHESTMODSEQ value for the mailbox;
|
||
* remove any pending "actions" that refer to UIDs in that
|
||
mailbox (note that this doesn't affect actions performed on
|
||
client-generated fake UIDs; see Section 5); and
|
||
* skip steps 1b and 2-II;
|
||
|
||
1b) Check the mailbox HIGHESTMODSEQ. If the cached value is the
|
||
same as the one returned by the server, skip fetching message
|
||
flags on step 2-II, i.e., the client only has to find out
|
||
which messages got expunged.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 31]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
2) Fetch the current "descriptors".
|
||
|
||
I) Discover new messages.
|
||
|
||
II) Discover changes to old messages and flags for new messages
|
||
using
|
||
"FETCH 1:* (FLAGS) (CHANGEDSINCE <cached-value>)" or
|
||
"SEARCH MODSEQ <cached-value>".
|
||
|
||
Discover expunged messages; for example, using
|
||
"UID SEARCH 1:<lastseenuid>". (All messages not returned
|
||
in this command are expunged.)
|
||
|
||
3) Fetch the bodies of any "interesting" messages that the client
|
||
doesn't already have.
|
||
|
||
Example 10:
|
||
|
||
The UIDVALIDITY value is the same, but the HIGHESTMODSEQ value
|
||
has changed on the server while the client was offline.
|
||
|
||
C: A142 SELECT INBOX
|
||
S: * 172 EXISTS
|
||
S: * 1 RECENT
|
||
S: * OK [UNSEEN 12] Message 12 is first unseen
|
||
S: * OK [UIDVALIDITY 3857529045] UIDs valid
|
||
S: * OK [UIDNEXT 201] Predicted next UID
|
||
S: * FLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Deleted \Seen \Draft)
|
||
S: * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (\Deleted \Seen \*)] Limited
|
||
S: * OK [HIGHESTMODSEQ 20010715194045007]
|
||
S: A142 OK [READ-WRITE] SELECT completed
|
||
|
||
After that, either:
|
||
|
||
C: A143 UID FETCH 1:* (FLAGS) (CHANGEDSINCE 20010715194032001)
|
||
S: * 2 FETCH (UID 6 MODSEQ (20010715205008000) FLAGS (\Deleted))
|
||
S: * 5 FETCH (UID 9 MODSEQ (20010715195517000) FLAGS ($NoJunk
|
||
$AutoJunk $MDNSent))
|
||
...
|
||
S: A143 OK FETCH completed
|
||
|
||
or:
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 32]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
C: A143 UID SEARCH MODSEQ 20010715194032001 UID 1:20
|
||
S: * SEARCH 6 9 11 12 18 19 20 23 (MODSEQ 20010917162500)
|
||
S: A143 OK Search complete
|
||
C: A144 UID SEARCH 1:20
|
||
S: * SEARCH 6 9 ...
|
||
S: A144 OK FETCH completed
|
||
|
||
7. Security Considerations
|
||
|
||
It is believed that this document does not raise any new security
|
||
concerns that are not already present in the base [IMAP4] protocol,
|
||
and these issues are discussed in [IMAP4]. Additional security
|
||
considerations may be found in different extensions mentioned in this
|
||
document; in particular, in [UIDPLUS], [LITERAL+], [CONDSTORE],
|
||
[MULTIAPPEND], and [UNSELECT].
|
||
|
||
Implementers are also reminded about the importance of thorough
|
||
testing.
|
||
|
||
8. References
|
||
|
||
8.1. Normative References
|
||
|
||
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
|
||
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
|
||
|
||
[IMAP4] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL -
|
||
VERSION 4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
|
||
|
||
[UIDPLUS] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) -
|
||
UIDPLUS extension", RFC 4315, December 2005.
|
||
|
||
[LITERAL+] Myers, J., "IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals", RFC
|
||
2088, January 1997.
|
||
|
||
[CONDSTORE] Melnikov, A. and S. Hole, "IMAP Extension for
|
||
Conditional STORE Operation or Quick Flag Changes
|
||
Resynchronization", RFC 4551, June 2006.
|
||
|
||
[MULTIAPPEND] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) -
|
||
MULTIAPPEND Extension", RFC 3502, March 2003.
|
||
|
||
[UNSELECT] Melnikov, A., "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP)
|
||
UNSELECT command", RFC 3691, February 2004.
|
||
|
||
[RFC2683] Leiba, B., "IMAP4 Implementation Recommendations", RFC
|
||
2683, September 1999.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 33]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
8.2. Informative References
|
||
|
||
[ACL] Melnikov, A., "IMAP4 Access Control List (ACL)
|
||
Extension", RFC 4314, December 2005.
|
||
|
||
[IMAP-MODEL] Crispin, M., "Distributed Electronic Mail Models in
|
||
IMAP4", RFC 1733, December 1994.
|
||
|
||
9. Acknowledgements
|
||
|
||
This document is based on version 01 of the text written by Rob
|
||
Austein in November 1994.
|
||
|
||
The editor appreciates comments posted by Mark Crispin to the IMAP
|
||
mailing list and the comments/corrections/ideas received from Grant
|
||
Baillie, Cyrus Daboo, John G. Myers, Chris Newman, and Timo Sirainen.
|
||
|
||
The editor would also like to thank the developers of Netscape
|
||
Messenger and Mozilla mail clients for providing examples of
|
||
disconnected mail clients that served as a base for many
|
||
recommendations in this document.
|
||
|
||
Editor's Address
|
||
|
||
Alexey Melnikov
|
||
Isode Limited
|
||
5 Castle Business Village
|
||
36 Station Road
|
||
Hampton, Middlesex
|
||
TW12 2BX
|
||
United Kingdom
|
||
|
||
Phone: +44 77 53759732
|
||
EMail: alexey.melnikov@isode.com
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 34]
|
||
|
||
RFC 4549 Synch Ops for Disconnected IMAP4 Clients June 2006
|
||
|
||
|
||
Full Copyright Statement
|
||
|
||
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
|
||
|
||
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
|
||
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
|
||
retain all their rights.
|
||
|
||
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
|
||
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
|
||
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
|
||
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
|
||
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
|
||
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
|
||
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
|
||
|
||
Intellectual Property
|
||
|
||
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
|
||
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
|
||
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
|
||
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
|
||
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
|
||
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
|
||
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
|
||
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
|
||
|
||
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
|
||
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
|
||
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
|
||
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
|
||
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
|
||
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
|
||
|
||
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
|
||
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
|
||
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
|
||
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
|
||
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
|
||
|
||
Acknowledgement
|
||
|
||
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
|
||
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Melnikov Informational [Page 35]
|
||
|