RFC INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL – VERSION 4rev1, March Canonical URL: ; File formats . [RFC ] IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension for Simple [RFC ] INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL – VERSION 4rev1. RFC List. RFC. Problem Solved. Plan for new Protocol. RFC Internet Message Access Protocol – Version 4. Replaced by See
|Published (Last):||10 October 2011|
|PDF File Size:||20.81 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.80 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Mixed responses a la LMTP would render many more of them moot. These mechanisms allow clients to retrieve the text portion of a message without retrieving attached files or to stream content as it is being fetched.
Moreover, single parts of emails may be annotated, e. Timo Sirainen, Dave Cridland. An example of rvc an application is use of an IMAP mailbox as a message imxp with multiple dequeueing clients. There are a few cases covering list andling – it’s a lot more complex than the small amount of actual data involved justifies.
But this one has a problem, it doesn’t let you sort across folders, which makes it only half the solution. Common use case is “add a rule to filter messages matching X into a folder, and also apply that to the messages in INBOX now so existing ones get copied”.
In addition to this, Courier Rrc Server offers a non-standard method of sending using IMAP by copying an outgoing message to a dedicated outbox folder. Ideally part of a immap generic “batch operations” – more discussion required.
Internet Message Access Protocol
BURL is too complex from a “interacting systems, firewalls and authentication methods” perspective. Also fuzzy searching and partial response is an interesting area. For instance, the specification states that each message stored on the server has a “unique id” to allow the clients to identify messages they have already seen between sessions. Definitely, need to keep this – language negotiation needs to be part of the initial connection.
Sending mail via an IMAP connection”. An IMAP rcc typically listens on port number Unlike some proprietary protocols which combine sending and retrieval operations, sending a message and saving a copy in a server-side folder with a base-level IMAP client requires transmitting the message content twice, once to SMTP for delivery and a second time to IMAP to store in a sent mail folder. The IMAP specification has been criticised for being insufficiently strict and imsp behaviours that effectively negate its usefulness.
While some clients and servers preferentially use vendor-specific, proprietary protocols almost all support POP and IMAP for retrieving e-mail – allowing many free choice between many e-mail clients such as Pegasus Mail or Mozilla Thunderbird to access these servers, and allows the clients to be used with other servers. It defines several new access control rights and clarifies which rights are required for different IMAP commands.
Archived rvc the original on Heirarchy separator will either be forced or not exist tree data structure on the wire. Also need to handle the case of “partial IO error” – where data exists but can not be returned immediately for some reason.
It will be less human-typing-friendly, but more machine friendly. Incoming e-mail messages are sent to an e-mail server that stores messages in the recipient’s e-mail box. It is also possible to attach annotations to specific parts of a message, so that, for example, they could be marked as seen, or important, or a comment added. Definitely want token based access so you can authenticate once and then re-connect with the same token, at least during the same “session”.
These flags are stored on the server, so different clients accessing the same 3510 at different times can detect state changes made by other clients. Will need an Access Control mechanism. IMAP was designed by Mark Crispin in as a remote access mailbox protocol, in contrast to the widely used POP, a protocol for simply retrieving the contents of a mailbox. With the IDLE command, imaap server can tell the client that a mailbox status has changed.
Views Read Edit View history. This specification does not define a generative grammar for URIs; that task is performed by the individual specifications of each URI scheme. Reflecting the experience of earlier Internet protocols, IMAP4 defines an explicit mechanism by which it may be extended.
An Email Filtering Language and all the extentions Support Sieve – possibly even sieve fragments as “run this filter on this mailbox”. Clients may store local copies of the messages, but these are considered to be a temporary cache. The hard bit will be extra things like metadata, condstore, which it doesn’t seem to consider rvc so it’s incomplete. Specify shared vs private “same keyword”, e.
RFC – INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL – VERSION 4rev1
These clients need a mechanism to synchronize state changes for messages within the mailbox. The best approach for ‘push’ e-mail”. This draft was based upon the following earlier specifications: Need to fix the sort as well [ http: Less necessary with higher resources available 3051.
Need to fix the sort as well.
Internet Message Access Protocol – Wikipedia
Was there really a point? The IMAP4 protocol allows clients to retrieve any of the individual MIME parts separately and also to retrieve portions of either individual parts or the entire message. Make sure protocol supports simple access to emails.
Specify quota and ACL handling currently different jmap keywords and annotations. Extend more – allow both private and shared “special uses”, because there are contexts where both make sense. The specification has an example: See comment – will be mooted. In particular, replacing pairs of mutually exclusive options with a “tristate” makes sense. Specifies a method to synchronise a client with a server after some time for the client being offline.
Ideally not too different – reuse as much as possible. Non-authorative addendum to RFC Except making LIST extensible and giving tiny bandwidth improvements and tiny server performance improvements There are a few cases covering list andling – it’s a lot more complex than the small amount of actual data involved justifies.