Initial Alpine Version

1 files changed, 787 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/imap/docs/rfc/rfc2180.txt b/imap/docs/rfc/rfc2180.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..57607002
--- /dev/null
+++ b/imap/docs/rfc/rfc2180.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,787 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                          M. Gahrns
+Request for Comments: 2180                                     Microsoft
+Category: Informational                                        July 1997
+
+
+                 IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo
+   does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
+   this memo is unlimited.
+
+1. Abstract
+
+   IMAP4[RFC-2060] is rich client/server protocol that allows a client
+   to access and manipulate electronic mail messages on a server.
+   Within the protocol framework, it is possible to have differing
+   results for particular client/server interactions. If a protocol does
+   not allow for this, it is often unduly restrictive.
+
+   For example, when multiple clients are accessing a mailbox and one
+   attempts to delete the mailbox, an IMAP4 server may choose to
+   implement a solution based upon server architectural constraints or
+   individual preference.
+
+   With this flexibility comes greater client responsibility.  It is not
+   sufficient for a client to be written based upon the behavior of a
+   particular IMAP server.  Rather the client must be based upon the
+   behavior allowed by the protocol.
+
+   By documenting common IMAP4 server practice for the case of
+   simultaneous client access to a mailbox, we hope to ensure the widest
+   amount of inter-operation between IMAP4 clients and servers.
+
+   The behavior described in this document reflects the practice of some
+   existing servers or behavior that the consensus of the IMAP mailing
+   list has deemed to be reasonable.  The behavior described within this
+   document is believed to be [RFC-2060] compliant. However, this
+   document is not meant to define IMAP4 compliance, nor is it an
+   exhaustive list of valid IMAP4 behavior. [RFC-2060] must always be
+   consulted to determine IMAP4 compliance, especially for server
+   behavior not described within this document.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns                       Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2180         IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice         July 1997
+
+
+2. Conventions used in this document
+
+   In examples,"C1:", "C2:" and "C3:" indicate lines sent by 3 different
+   clients (client #1, client #2 and client #3) that are connected to a
+   server.  "S1:", "S2:" and "S3:" indicated lines sent by the server to
+   client #1, client #2 and client #3 respectively.
+
+   A shared mailbox, is a mailbox that can be used by multiple users.
+
+   A multi-accessed mailbox, is a mailbox that has multiple clients
+   simultaneously accessing it.
+
+   A client is said to have accessed a mailbox after a successful SELECT
+   or EXAMINE command.
+
+   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].
+
+
+3. Deletion/Renaming of a multi-accessed mailbox
+
+   If an external agent or multiple clients are accessing a mailbox,
+   care must be taken when handling the deletion or renaming of the
+   mailbox. Following are some strategies an IMAP server may choose to
+   use when dealing with this situation.
+
+
+3.1. The server MAY fail the DELETE/RENAME command of a multi-accessed
+     mailbox
+
+   In some cases, this behavior may not be practical.  For example, if a
+   large number of clients are accessing a shared mailbox, the window in
+   which no clients have the mailbox accessed may be small or non-
+   existent, effectively rendering the mailbox undeletable or
+   unrenamable.
+
+   Example:
+
+   <Client #1 and Client #2 have mailbox FOO accessed. Client #1 tries
+   to DELETE the mailbox and is refused>
+
+             C1: A001 DELETE FOO
+             S1: A001 NO Mailbox FOO is in use by another user.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns                       Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2180         IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice         July 1997
+
+
+3.2. The server MAY allow the DELETE command of a multi-accessed
+     mailbox, but keep the information in the mailbox available for
+     those clients that currently have access to the mailbox.
+
+   When all clients have finished accessing the mailbox, it is
+   permanently removed.  For clients that do not already have access to
+   the mailbox, the 'ghosted' mailbox would not be available.  For
+   example, it would not be returned to these clients in a subsequent
+   LIST or LSUB command and would not be a valid mailbox argument to any
+   other IMAP command until the reference count of clients accessing the
+   mailbox reached 0.
+
+   In some cases, this behavior may not be desirable. For example if
+   someone created a mailbox with offensive or sensitive information,
+   one might prefer to have the mailbox deleted and all access to the
+   information contained within removed immediately, rather than
+   continuing to allow access until the client closes the mailbox.
+
+   Furthermore, this behavior, may prevent 'recycling' of the same
+   mailbox name until all clients have finished accessing the original
+   mailbox.
+
+   Example:
+
+   <Client #1 and Client #2 have mailbox FOO selected. Client #1 DELETEs
+   mailbox FOO>
+
+             C1: A001 DELETE FOO
+             S1: A001 OK Mailbox FOO is deleted.
+
+   <Client #2 is still able to operate on the deleted mailbox>
+
+             C2: B001 STORE 1 +FLAGS (\Seen)
+             S2: * 1 FETCH FLAGS (\Seen)
+             S2: B001 OK STORE completed
+
+   <Client #3 which did not have access to the mailbox prior to the
+   deletion by client #1 does not have access to the mailbox>
+
+             C3: C001 STATUS FOO (MESSAGES)
+             S3: C001 NO Mailbox does not exist
+
+   <Nor is client #3 able to create a mailbox with the name FOO, while
+   the reference count is non zero>
+
+             C3: C002 CREATE FOO
+             S3: C002 NO Mailbox FOO is still in use. Try again later.
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns                       Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2180         IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice         July 1997
+
+
+   <Client #2 closes its access to the mailbox, no other clients have
+   access to the mailbox FOO and reference count becomes 0>
+
+             C2: B002 CLOSE
+             S2: B002 OK CLOSE Completed
+
+   <Now that the reference count on FOO has reached 0, the mailbox name
+   can be recycled>
+
+             C3: C003 CREATE FOO
+             S3: C003 OK CREATE Completed
+
+
+3.3. The server MAY allow the DELETE/RENAME of a multi-accessed
+     mailbox, but disconnect all other clients who have the mailbox
+     accessed by sending a untagged BYE response.
+
+   A server may often choose to disconnect clients in the DELETE case,
+   but may choose to implement a "friendlier" method for the RENAME
+   case.
+
+   Example:
+
+   <Client #1 and Client #2 have mailbox FOO accessed. Client #1 DELETEs
+   the mailbox FOO>
+
+             C1: A002 DELETE FOO
+             S1: A002 OK DELETE completed.
+
+   <Server disconnects all other users of the mailbox>
+             S2: * BYE Mailbox FOO has been deleted.
+
+
+3.4. The server MAY allow the RENAME of a multi-accessed mailbox by
+     simply changing the name attribute on the mailbox.
+
+   Other clients that have access to the mailbox can continue issuing
+   commands such as FETCH that do not reference the mailbox name.
+   Clients would discover the renaming the next time they referred to
+   the old mailbox name.  Some servers MAY choose to include the
+   [NEWNAME] response code in their tagged NO response to a command that
+   contained the old mailbox name, as a hint to the client that the
+   operation can succeed if the command is issued with the new mailbox
+   name.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns                       Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 2180         IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice         July 1997
+
+
+   Example:
+
+   <Client #1 and Client #2 have mailbox FOO accessed. Client #1 RENAMEs
+   the mailbox.>
+
+             C1: A001 RENAME FOO BAR
+             S1: A001 OK RENAME completed.
+
+   <Client #2 is still able to do operations that do not reference the
+   mailbox name>
+
+             C2: B001 FETCH 2:4 (FLAGS)
+             S2: * 2 FETCH . . .
+             S2: * 3 FETCH . . .
+             S2: * 4 FETCH . . .
+             S2: B001 OK FETCH completed
+
+   <Client #2 is not able to do operations that reference the mailbox
+   name>
+
+             C2: B002 APPEND FOO {300} C2: Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994
+             21:52:25 0800 (PST) C2: . . .  S2: B002 NO [NEWNAME FOO
+             BAR] Mailbox has been renamed
+
+
+4. Expunging of messages on a multi-accessed mailbox
+
+   If an external agent or multiple clients are accessing a mailbox,
+   care must be taken when handling the EXPUNGE of messages.  Other
+   clients accessing the mailbox may be in the midst of issuing a
+   command that depends upon message sequence numbers.  Because an
+   EXPUNGE response can not be sent while responding to a FETCH, STORE
+   or SEARCH command, it is not possible to immediately notify the
+   client of the EXPUNGE.  This can result in ambiguity if the client
+   issues a FETCH, STORE or SEARCH operation on a message that has been
+   EXPUNGED.
+
+
+4.1. Fetching of expunged messages
+
+   Following are some strategies an IMAP server may choose to use when
+   dealing with a FETCH command on expunged messages.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns                       Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 2180         IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice         July 1997
+
+
+   Consider the following scenario:
+
+   - Client #1 and Client #2 have mailbox FOO selected.
+   - There are 7 messages in the mailbox.
+   - Messages 4:7 are marked for deletion.
+   - Client #1 issues an EXPUNGE, to expunge messages 4:7
+
+
+4.1.1. The server MAY allow the EXPUNGE of a multi-accessed mailbox but
+       keep the messages available to satisfy subsequent FETCH commands
+       until it is able to send an EXPUNGE response to each client.
+
+   In some cases, the behavior of keeping "ghosted" messages may not be
+   desirable.  For example if a message contained offensive or sensitive
+   information, one might prefer to instantaneously remove all access to
+   the information, regardless of whether another client is in the midst
+   of accessing it.
+
+   Example:  (Building upon the scenario outlined in 4.1.)
+
+   <Client #2 is still able to access the expunged messages because the
+   server has kept a 'ghosted' copy of the messages until it is able to
+   notify client #2 of the EXPUNGE>
+
+             C2: B001 FETCH 4:7 RFC822
+             S2: * 4 FETCH RFC822 . . . (RFC822 info returned)
+             S2: * 5 FETCH RFC822 . . . (RFC822 info returned)
+             S2: * 6 FETCH RFC822 . . . (RFC822 info returned)
+             S2: * 7 FETCH RFC822 . . . (RFC822 info returned)
+             S2: B001 OK FETCH Completed
+
+   <Client #2 issues a command where it can get notified of the EXPUNGE>
+
+             C2: B002 NOOP
+             S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
+             S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
+             S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
+             S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
+             S2: * 3 EXISTS
+             S2: B002 OK NOOP Complete
+
+   <Client #2 no longer has access to the expunged messages>
+
+             C2: B003 FETCH 4:7 RFC822
+             S2: B003 NO Messages 4:7 are no longer available.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns                       Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 2180         IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice         July 1997
+
+
+4.1.2 The server MAY allow the EXPUNGE of a multi-accessed mailbox,
+      and on subsequent FETCH commands return FETCH responses only for
+      non-expunged messages and a tagged NO.
+
+   After receiving a tagged NO FETCH response, the client SHOULD issue a
+   NOOP command so that it will be informed of any pending EXPUNGE
+   responses.  The client may then either reissue the failed FETCH
+   command, or by examining the EXPUNGE response from the NOOP and the
+   FETCH response from the FETCH, determine that the FETCH failed
+   because of pending expunges.
+
+   Example:  (Building upon the scenario outlined in 4.1.)
+
+   <Client #2 attempts to FETCH a mix of expunged and non-expunged
+   messages.  A FETCH response is returned only for then non-expunged
+   messages along with a tagged NO>
+
+             C2: B001 FETCH 3:5 ENVELOPE
+             S2: * 3 FETCH ENVELOPE . . . (ENVELOPE info returned)
+             S2: B001 NO Some of the requested messages no longer exist
+
+   <Upon receiving a tagged NO FETCH response, Client #2 issues a NOOP
+   to be informed of any pending EXPUNGE responses>
+
+             C2: B002 NOOP
+             S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
+             S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
+             S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
+             S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
+             S2: * 3 EXISTS
+             S2: B002 OK NOOP Completed.
+
+   <By receiving a FETCH response for message 3, and an EXPUNGE response
+   that indicates messages 4:7 have been expunged, the client does not
+   need to re-issue the FETCH>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns                       Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 2180         IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice         July 1997
+
+
+4.1.3 The server MAY allow the EXPUNGE of a multi-accessed mailbox, and
+      on subsequent FETCH commands return the usual FETCH responses for
+      non-expunged messages, "NIL FETCH Responses" for expunged
+      messages, and a tagged OK response.
+
+   If all of the messages in the subsequent FETCH command have been
+   expunged, the server SHOULD return only a tagged NO.  In this case,
+   the client SHOULD issue a NOOP command so that it will be informed of
+   any pending EXPUNGE responses.  The client may then either reissue
+   the failed FETCH command, or by examining the EXPUNGE response from
+   the NOOP, determine that the FETCH failed because of pending
+   expunges.
+
+   "NIL FETCH responses" are a representation of empty data as
+   appropriate for the FETCH argument specified.
+
+   Example:
+
+   * 1 FETCH (ENVELOPE (NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL))
+   * 1 FETCH (FLAGS ())
+   * 1 FETCH (INTERNALDATE "00-Jan-0000 00:00:00 +0000")
+   * 1 FETCH (RFC822 "")
+   * 1 FETCH (RFC822.HEADER "")
+   * 1 FETCH (RFC822.TEXT "")
+   * 1 FETCH (RFC822.SIZE 0)
+   * 1 FETCH (BODY ("TEXT" "PLAIN" NIL NIL NIL "7BIT" 0 0)
+   * 1 FETCH (BODYSTRUCTURE ("TEXT" "PLAIN" NIL NIL NIL "7BIT" 0 0)
+   * 1 FETCH (BODY[<section>] "")
+   * 1 FETCH (BODY[<section>]<partial> "")
+
+   In some cases, a client may not be able to distinguish between "NIL
+   FETCH responses" received because a message was expunged and those
+   received because the data actually was NIL.  For example, a  * 5
+   FETCH (FLAGS ()) response could be received if no flags were set on
+   message 5, or because message 5 was expunged. In a case of potential
+   ambiguity, the client SHOULD issue a command such as NOOP to force
+   the sending of the EXPUNGE responses to resolve any ambiguity.
+
+   Example:  (Building upon the scenario outlined in 4.1.)
+
+   <Client #2 attempts to access a mix of expunged and non-expunged
+   messages.  Normal data is returned for non-expunged message, "NIL
+   FETCH responses" are returned for expunged messages>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns                       Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 2180         IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice         July 1997
+
+
+             C2: B002 FETCH 3:5 ENVELOPE
+             S2: * 3 FETCH ENVELOPE . . . (ENVELOPE info returned)
+             S2: * 4 FETCH ENVELOPE (NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL
+                   NIL NIL)
+             S2: * 5 FETCH ENVELOPE (NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL
+                   NIL NIL)
+             S2: B002 OK FETCH Completed
+
+   <Client #2 attempts to FETCH only expunged messages and receives a
+   tagged NO response>
+
+             C2: B002 FETCH 4:7 ENVELOPE
+             S2: B002 NO Messages 4:7 have been expunged.
+
+
+4.1.4 To avoid the situation altogether, the server MAY fail the
+      EXPUNGE of a multi-accessed mailbox
+
+   In some cases, this behavior may not be practical.  For example, if a
+   large number of clients are accessing a shared mailbox, the window in
+   which no clients have the mailbox accessed may be small or non-
+   existent, effectively rendering the message unexpungeable.
+
+
+4.2. Storing of expunged messages
+
+   Following are some strategies an IMAP server may choose to use when
+   dealing with a STORE command on expunged messages.
+
+
+4.2.1 If the ".SILENT" suffix is used, and the STORE completed
+      successfully for all the non-expunged messages, the server SHOULD
+      return a tagged OK.
+
+   Example:  (Building upon the scenario outlined in 4.1.)
+
+   <Client #2 tries to silently STORE flags on expunged and non-
+   expunged messages.  The server sets the flags on the non-expunged
+   messages and returns OK>
+
+             C2: B001 STORE 1:7 +FLAGS.SILENT (\SEEN)
+             S2: B001 OK
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns                       Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 2180         IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice         July 1997
+
+
+4.2.2. If the ".SILENT" suffix is not used, and only expunged messages
+       are referenced, the server SHOULD return only a tagged NO.
+
+   Example:  (Building upon the scenario outlined in 4.1.)
+
+   <Client #2 tries to STORE flags only on expunged messages>
+
+             C2: B001 STORE 5:7 +FLAGS (\SEEN)
+             S2: B001 NO  Messages have been expunged
+
+
+4.2.3. If the ".SILENT" suffix is not used, and a mixture of expunged
+       and non-expunged messages are referenced, the server MAY set the
+       flags and return a FETCH response for the non-expunged messages
+       along with a tagged NO.
+
+   After receiving a tagged NO STORE response, the client SHOULD issue a
+   NOOP command so that it will be informed of any pending EXPUNGE
+   responses.  The client may then either reissue the failed STORE
+   command, or by examining the EXPUNGE responses from the NOOP and
+   FETCH responses from the STORE, determine that the STORE failed
+   because of pending expunges.
+
+   Example:  (Building upon the scenario outlined in 4.1.)
+
+   <Client #2 tries to STORE flags on a mixture of expunged and non-
+   expunged messages>
+
+             C2: B001 STORE 1:7 +FLAGS (\SEEN)
+             S2: * FETCH 1 FLAGS (\SEEN)
+             S2: * FETCH 2 FLAGS (\SEEN)
+             S2: * FETCH 3 FLAGS (\SEEN)
+             S2: B001 NO Some of the messages no longer exist.
+
+             C2: B002 NOOP
+             S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
+             S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
+             S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
+             S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
+             S2: * 3 EXISTS
+             S2: B002 OK NOOP Completed.
+
+   <By receiving FETCH responses for messages 1:3, and an EXPUNGE
+   response that indicates messages 4:7 have been expunged, the client
+   does not need to re-issue the STORE>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns                       Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 2180         IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice         July 1997
+
+
+4.2.4. If the ".SILENT" suffix is not used, and a mixture of expunged
+       and non-expunged messages are referenced, the server MAY return
+       an untagged NO and not set any flags.
+
+   After receiving a tagged NO STORE response, the client SHOULD issue a
+   NOOP command so that it will be informed of any pending EXPUNGE
+   responses.  The client would then re-issue the STORE command after
+   updating its message list per any EXPUNGE response.
+
+   If a large number of clients are accessing a shared mailbox, the
+   window in which there are no pending expunges may be small or non-
+   existent, effectively disallowing a client from setting the flags on
+   all messages at once.
+
+   Example:  (Building upon the scenario outlined in 4.1.)
+
+   <Client #2 tries to STORE flags on a mixture of expunged and non-
+   expunged messages>
+
+             C2: B001 STORE 1:7 +FLAGS (\SEEN)
+             S2: B001 NO  Some of the messages no longer exist.
+
+   <Client #2 issues a NOOP to be informed of the EXPUNGED messages>
+
+             C2: B002 NOOP
+             S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
+             S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
+             S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
+             S2: * 4 EXPUNGE
+             S2: * 3 EXISTS
+             S2: B002 OK NOOP Completed.
+
+   <Client #2 updates its message list and re-issues the STORE on only
+   those messages that have not been expunged>
+
+             C2: B003 STORE 1:3 +FLAGS (\SEEN) S2: * FETCH 1 FLAGS
+             (\SEEN) S2: * FETCH 2 FLAGS (\SEEN) S2: * FETCH 3 FLAGS
+             (\SEEN) S2: B003 OK  STORE Completed
+
+
+4.3. Searching of expunged messages
+
+   A server MAY simply not return a search response for messages that
+   have been expunged and it has not been able to inform the client
+   about.  If a client was expecting a particular message to be returned
+   in a search result, and it was not, the client SHOULD issue a NOOP
+   command to see if the message was expunged by another client.
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns                       Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 2180         IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice         July 1997
+
+
+4.4 Copying of expunged messages
+
+   COPY is the only IMAP4 sequence number command that is safe to allow
+   an EXPUNGE response on.  This is because a client is not permitted to
+   cascade several COPY commands together. A client is required to wait
+   and confirm that the copy worked before issuing another one.
+
+4.4.1 The server MAY disallow the COPY of messages in a multi-access
+      mailbox that contains expunged messages.
+
+   Pending EXPUNGE response(s) MUST be returned to the COPY command.
+
+   Example:
+
+             C: A001 COPY 2,4,6,8 FRED
+             S: * 4 EXPUNGE
+             S: A001 NO COPY rejected, because some of the requested
+                messages were expunged
+
+   Note: Non of the above messages are copied because if a COPY command
+   is unsuccessful, the server MUST restore the destination mailbox to
+   its state before the COPY attempt.
+
+
+4.4.2 The server MAY allow the COPY of messages in a multi-access
+      mailbox that contains expunged messages.
+
+   Pending EXPUNGE response(s) MUST be returned to the COPY command.
+   Messages that are copied are messages corresponding to sequence
+   numbers before any EXPUNGE response.
+
+   Example:
+
+             C: A001 COPY 2,4,6,8 FRED
+             S: * 3 EXPUNGE
+             S: A001 OK COPY completed
+
+   In the above example, the messages that are copied to FRED are
+   messages 2,4,6,8 at the start of the COPY command.  These are
+   equivalent to messages 2,3,5,7 at the end of the COPY command.  The
+   EXPUNGE response can't take place until after the messages from the
+   COPY command are identified (because of the "no expunge while no
+   commands in progress" rule).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns                       Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 2180         IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice         July 1997
+
+
+   Example:
+
+             C: A001 COPY 2,4,6,8 FRED
+             S: * 4 EXPUNGE
+             S: A001 OK COPY completed
+
+   In the above example, message 4 was copied before it was expunged,
+   and MUST appear in the destination mailbox FRED.
+
+
+5. Security Considerations
+
+   This document describes behavior of servers that use the IMAP4
+   protocol, and as such, has the same security considerations as
+   described in [RFC-2060].
+
+   In particular, some described server behavior does not allow for the
+   immediate deletion of information when a mailbox is accessed by
+   multiple clients.  This may be a consideration when dealing with
+   sensitive information where immediate deletion would be preferred.
+
+
+6. References
+
+   [RFC-2060], Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
+   4rev1", RFC 2060, University of Washington, December 1996.
+
+   [RFC-2119], Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+   Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, Harvard University, March 1997.
+
+
+7.  Acknowledgments
+
+   This document is the result of discussions on the IMAP4 mailing list
+   and is meant to reflect consensus of this group.  In particular,
+   Raymond Cheng, Mark Crispin, Jim Evans, Erik Forsberg, Steve Hole,
+   Mark Keasling, Barry Leiba, Syd Logan, John Mani, Pat Moran, Larry
+   Osterman, Chris Newman, Bart Schaefer, Vladimir Vulovic, and Jack De
+   Winter were active participants in this discussion or made
+   suggestions to this document.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns                       Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 2180         IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice         July 1997
+
+
+8. Author's Address
+
+   Mike Gahrns
+   Microsoft
+   One Microsoft Way
+   Redmond, WA, 98072
+
+   Phone: (206) 936-9833
+   EMail: mikega@microsoft.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns                       Informational                     [Page 14]
+