IMAP RFC 3501 PDF
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):||6 April 2008|
|PDF File Size:||13.83 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.80 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Expand scope to include other objects annotations, keywords, num-folders, etc consistently. Has some best-practices how well-behaving IMAP servers should behave. RFC List Every RFC is the work of someone who felt enough pain from the lack of something that they would make the effort to write the document.
IMAP4 provides a mechanism for a client to ask the server to search for messages meeting a variety of criteria. Retrieved from ” https: This and other characteristics of IMAP operation allow multiple clients to manage the same mailbox.
These flags are stored on the server, so different clients accessing the same mailbox at different times can detect state changes made by other clients.
Definitely want token based access so you can authenticate once and then re-connect with the same token, at least during the same “session”. Make sure protocol supports simple access to emails. Timo Sirainen, Dave Cridland. 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.
Internet Message Access Protocol
In contrast, the IMAP protocol specifically allows simultaneous access by multiple clients and rrc mechanisms for clients to detect changes made to the mailbox by other, concurrently connected, 3510.
Clients may store local copies of the messages, but these are considered to be a temporary cache. 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. Explicity allow space for extention. 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 umap complex than the small amount of actual data involved justifies.
An Email Filtering Language. Yet another axis of data – need to merge with keywords and regularise.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. See for example RFC section 5. There’s not even an attempt to include address book, calendaring, etc in this list yet! Incoming rffc messages are sent to an e-mail server that stores messages in the recipient’s e-mail box. This experimental revision was called IMAP2bis; its specification was never published in non-draft form.
No copies of the original interim protocol specification or its software exist. Retrieved 26 November This specification defines the generic URI syntax and a process for resolving URI references that might be in relative form, along with guidelines and security considerations for the use of URIs on the Internet.
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”.
evolution-kolab – RFC Reference
This is almost a replacement protocol in itself – hopefully it will map almost untouched. Views Read Edit View history. See comment – will be mooted.
The best approach for ‘push’ e-mail”. Specify shared vs private “same keyword”, e.
commands – GoDoc
Reflecting the experience of earlier Internet protocols, IMAP4 defines an explicit mechanism by which it may be extended. This memo has been defined to provide the definition of a common format for openly exchanging calendaring and scheduling information across the Internet.
This will need to be addressed in individual sections. In doubt, RFC is authorative. Set a baseline of “required supported features” to get a better experience. With the IDLE command, the server can tell the client that a mailbox status has changed. However, the specification also allows rtc UIDs to be invalidated with no restrictions, practically defeating their purpose.
Sending mail via an IMAP connection”. E-mail clients using IMAP generally leave messages on the server until the user explicitly deletes them. Support Sieve – possibly even sieve fragments as “run this filter on this mailbox”.
POP provides no mechanism for clients to store such state information on the server so if a single user accesses a mailbox with two different POP clients at different timesstate information—such as whether a message has been accessed—cannot be synchronized between the clients. Less necessary with higher ffc available today.
Also fuzzy searching and partial response is an interesting area. This mechanism avoids requiring clients to download every message in the mailbox in order to perform these searches.
Archived from the original on Folder listing is one of the major pain points for client authors. Massive deadwood cleaning required here.