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

Author: Zululkis Kigazragore
Country: Qatar
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Career
Published (Last): 3 December 2009
Pages: 360
PDF File Size: 11.97 Mb
ePub File Size: 19.71 Mb
ISBN: 737-7-79046-248-2
Downloads: 77851
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Zolonris

This memo has been defined to provide the definition of a common format for openly exchanging calendaring and scheduling information across the Internet.

Ideally composible actions – first characters of decoded value of part “1. Has some best-practices how well-behaving IMAP servers should behave. Ideally, part of a more general “compose commands” – but the ability to store a search result for later manipulation will be needed.

Retrieved from ” https: Except making LIST extensible and giving tiny bandwidth improvements and tiny server performance improvements. Either use them as-is, or map into annotation-space. System flags indicate state information such as whether a message has rc read. Incoming e-mail messages are sent to an e-mail server that stores messages in the recipient’s e-mail box. Many IMAP4 extensions to the base protocol have been proposed and are in common use.

This experimental revision was called IMAP2bis; its specification was never published in non-draft form.

Internet Message Access Protocol

E-mail clients using IMAP generally leave messages on the server until the user explicitly deletes them. Exactly what we’re planning here – everything you can do with Lemonade should be supported – not necessarily in the same way. 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.


The specification has an example: 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.

Need to fix the sort as well [ http: Hosted by Red Hat. Explicity allow space for extention.

evolution-kolab – RFC Reference

Retrieved 26 November Heirarchy separator will either be forced or not exist tree data structure on the wire. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Rdc and Privacy Policy. Email Unicode and email. The hard bit will be extra things like metadata, condstore, which it doesn’t seem to consider – so it’s incomplete. However, the specification also allows these UIDs to be invalidated with no restrictions, practically defeating their purpose. 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”. The POP protocol requires the currently connected client to rcf the only client connected to the mailbox.


With the IDLE command, the server can tell the client that a mailbox status has changed. This draft was based upon the following earlier specifications: The Conditional Store facility also allows a client to quickly resynchronize mailbox flag changes.


IBM ‘s Notes client works in a similar fashion when communicating with a Domino server. This specification defines the generic URI syntax and a process for resolving URI references that might be miap relative form, along with guidelines and security considerations for the imsp of URIs on the Internet. Would love to make this more general – sort by a somewhat arbitrary function on the message. This mechanism avoids requiring clients to download every message in the mailbox in order to perform these searches.

Set a baseline of “required supported features” rdc get a better experience.

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. No copies of the original interim protocol specification or its software exist. These gfc need to be solved somehow – maybe inherently in a different protocol, maybe explicitly.

This will 351 to be addressed in individual sections. 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 3510 small amount of actual data involved justifies. 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.

Definitely, need to keep this – language negotiation needs to be part of the initial connection.