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):||15 February 2010|
|PDF File Size:||15.56 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.62 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
evolution-kolab – RFC Reference
Moreover, single parts of emails may be annotated, e. They must gfc able to guarantee that only one client can change message state e. Massive deadwood cleaning required here. Expand scope considerably – IDLE is insufficient for many users, because it only monitors one mailbox.
Ideally not too different – reuse as much as possible.
Internet Message Access Protocol
Has some best-practices how well-behaving IMAP servers should behave. With the IDLE command, the server can tell the client that a mailbox status has changed.
Through the use of flags defined in the IMAP4 protocol, clients can keep track of message state: The specification has an example: Non-authorative addendum to RFC Ideally, part of a more general “compose commands” iamp but rcc ability to store a search result for later manipulation will be needed. Doesn’t go far enough – particularly across folders.
This will need to be addressed in individual sections. Incoming e-mail messages are sent to an e-mail server that stores messages in the recipient’s e-mail box. Make sure protocol supports simple access to emails.
RFC’s – hMailServer – Free open source email server for Microsoft Windows
In contrast, the IMAP protocol specifically allows simultaneous access by multiple clients and provides mechanisms for clients to detect changes made to the mailbox by other, concurrently connected, clients. Email Unicode and email. Except making LIST extensible and giving tiny bandwidth improvements and tiny server performance improvements. Specifies a method to synchronise a client with a server after some time for the client being offline.
IMAP was designed with the goal of permitting complete management of an email box by multiple email clients, therefore clients generally leave messages on the server until the user explicitly deletes them.
Explicity allow space for extention. Not using sequence numbers would render many of these moot. In particular, replacing pairs of mutually exclusive options with a “tristate” makes sense.
This document replaces RFC This is almost a replacement protocol in itself – hopefully it will map almost untouched. Need to fix the sort as well. May need to consider individual folders vs “entire user” in the context of folder-level ACLs.
Support Sieve – possibly even sieve fragments as “run this filter on this mailbox”. 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. An Email Filtering Language and all the extentions Support Sieve – possibly even sieve fragments as “run this filter on this mailbox”. Definitely want token based access so you can authenticate once and then re-connect with the same token, at least during the same “session”.
Keywords, which are not supported by all IMAP servers, allow messages to be given one or more tags whose meaning is up to the client.
ImapRFCList – Unofficial IMAP Protocol Wiki
This document is a revision of 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.
Ideally composible actions – first characters of decoded rfx of part “1.
See for example RFC section 5. An IMAP server typically listens on port number