summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/imap/docs/rfc/rfc2193.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'imap/docs/rfc/rfc2193.txt')
-rw-r--r--imap/docs/rfc/rfc2193.txt507
1 files changed, 507 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/imap/docs/rfc/rfc2193.txt b/imap/docs/rfc/rfc2193.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..2fec58d7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/imap/docs/rfc/rfc2193.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,507 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group M. Gahrns
+Request for Comments: 2193 Microsoft
+Category: Standards Track September 1997
+
+
+ IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+ This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
+ Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+ improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
+ Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
+ and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+1. Abstract
+
+ When dealing with large amounts of users, messages and geographically
+ dispersed IMAP4 [RFC-2060] servers, it is often desirable to
+ distribute messages amongst different servers within an organization.
+ For example an administrator may choose to store user's personal
+ mailboxes on a local IMAP4 server, while storing shared mailboxes
+ remotely on another server. This type of configuration is common
+ when it is uneconomical to store all data centrally due to limited
+ bandwidth or disk resources.
+
+ Mailbox referrals allow clients to seamlessly access mailboxes that
+ are distributed across several IMAP4 servers.
+
+ A referral mechanism can provide efficiencies over the alternative
+ "proxy method", in which the local IMAP4 server contacts the remote
+ server on behalf of the client, and then transfers the data from the
+ remote server to itself, and then on to the client. The referral
+ mechanism's direct client connection to the remote server is often a
+ more efficient use of bandwidth, and does not require the local
+ server to impersonate the client when authenticating to the remote
+ server.
+
+2. Conventions used in this document
+
+ In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
+ server respectively.
+
+ A home server, is an IMAP4 server that contains the user's inbox.
+
+ A remote mailbox is a mailbox that is not hosted on the user's home
+ server.
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns Standards Track [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2193 IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals September 1997
+
+
+ A remote server is a server that contains remote mailboxes.
+
+ A shared mailbox, is a mailbox that multiple users have access to.
+
+ An IMAP mailbox referral is when the server directs the client to
+ another IMAP mailbox.
+
+ 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. Introduction and Overview
+
+ IMAP4 servers that support this extension MUST list the keyword
+ MAILBOX-REFERRALS in their CAPABILITY response. No client action is
+ needed to invoke the MAILBOX-REFERRALS capability in a server.
+
+ A MAILBOX-REFERRALS capable IMAP4 server MUST NOT return referrals
+ that result in a referrals loop.
+
+ A referral response consists of a tagged NO response and a REFERRAL
+ response code. The REFERRAL response code MUST contain as an
+ argument a one or more valid URLs separated by a space as defined in
+ [RFC-1738]. If a server replies with multiple URLs for a particular
+ object, they MUST all be of the same type. In this case, the URL MUST
+ be an IMAP URL as defined in [RFC-2192]. A client that supports the
+ REFERRALS extension MUST be prepared for a URL of any type, but it
+ need only be able to process IMAP URLs.
+
+ A server MAY respond with multiple IMAP mailbox referrals if there is
+ more than one replica of the mailbox. This allows the implementation
+ of a load balancing or failover scheme. How a server keeps multiple
+ replicas of a mailbox in sync is not addressed by this document.
+
+ If the server has a preferred order in which the client should
+ attempt to access the URLs, the preferred URL SHOULD be listed in the
+ first, with the remaining URLs presented in descending order of
+ preference. If multiple referrals are given for a mailbox, a server
+ should be aware that there are synchronization issues for a client if
+ the UIDVALIDITY of the referred mailboxes are different.
+
+ An IMAP mailbox referral may be given in response to an IMAP command
+ that specifies a mailbox as an argument.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns Standards Track [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2193 IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals September 1997
+
+
+ Example:
+
+ A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/REMOTE]Remote Mailbox
+
+ NOTE: user;AUTH=* is specified as required by [RFC-2192] to avoid a
+ client falling back to anonymous login.
+
+ Remote mailboxes and their inferiors, that are accessible only via
+ referrals SHOULD NOT appear in LIST and LSUB responses issued against
+ the user's home server. They MUST appear in RLIST and RLSUB
+ responses issued against the user's home server. Hierarchy referrals,
+ in which a client would be required to connect to the remote server
+ to issue a LIST to discover the inferiors of a mailbox are not
+ addressed in this document.
+
+ For example, if shared mailboxes were only accessible via referrals
+ on a remote server, a RLIST "" "#SHARED/%" command would return the
+ same response if issued against the user's home server or the remote
+ server.
+
+ Note: Mailboxes that are available on the user's home server do not
+ need to be available on the remote server. In addition, there may be
+ additional mailboxes available on the remote server, but they will
+ not accessible to the client via referrals unless they appear in the
+ LIST response to the RLIST command against the user's home server.
+
+ A MAILBOX-REFERRALS capable client will issue the RLIST and RLSUB
+ commands in lieu of LIST and LSUB. The RLIST and RLSUB commands
+ behave identically to their LIST and LSUB counterparts, except remote
+ mailboxes are returned in addition to local mailboxes in the LIST and
+ LSUB responses. This avoids displaying to a non MAILBOX-REFERRALS
+ enabled client inaccessible remote mailboxes.
+
+4.1. SELECT, EXAMINE, DELETE, SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, STATUS and APPEND
+ Referrals
+
+ An IMAP4 server MAY respond to the SELECT, EXAMINE, DELETE,
+ SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, STATUS or APPEND command with one or more
+ IMAP mailbox referrals to indicate to the client that the mailbox is
+ hosted on a remote server.
+
+ When a client processes an IMAP mailbox referral, it will open a new
+ connection or use an existing connection to the remote server so that
+ it is able to issue the commands necessary to process the remote
+ mailbox.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns Standards Track [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2193 IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals September 1997
+
+
+ Example: <IMAP4 connection to home server>
+
+ C: A001 DELETE "SHARED/FOO"
+ S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/SHARED/FOO]
+ Remote mailbox. Try SERVER2.
+
+ <Client established a second connection to SERVER2 and
+ issues the DELETE command on the referred mailbox>
+
+ S: * OK IMAP4rev1 server ready
+ C: B001 AUTHENTICATE KERBEROS_V4
+ <authentication exchange>
+ S: B001 OK user is authenticated
+
+ C: B002 DELETE "SHARED/FOO"
+ S: B002 OK DELETE completed
+
+ Example: <IMAP4 connection to home server>
+
+ C: A001 SELECT REMOTE
+ S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/REMOTE
+ IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER3/REMOTE] Remote mailbox.
+ Try SERVER2 or SERVER3.
+
+ <Client opens second connection to remote server, and
+ issues the commands needed to process the items in the
+ remote mailbox>
+
+ S: * OK IMAP4rev1 server ready
+ C: B001 AUTHENTICATE KERBEROS_V4
+ <authentication exchange>
+ S: B001 OK user is authenticated
+
+ C: B002 SELECT REMOTE
+ S: * 12 EXISTS
+ S: * 1 RECENT
+ S: * OK [UNSEEN 10] Message 10 is first unseen
+ S: * OK [UIDVALIDITY 123456789]
+ S: * FLAGS (Answered Flagged Deleted Seen Draft)
+ S: * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (Answered Deleted Seen ]
+ S: B002 OK [READ-WRITE] Selected completed
+
+ C: B003 FETCH 10:12 RFC822
+ S: * 10 FETCH . . .
+ S: * 11 FETCH . . .
+ S: * 12 FETCH . . .
+ S: B003 OK FETCH Completed
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns Standards Track [Page 4]
+
+RFC 2193 IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals September 1997
+
+
+ <Client is finished processing the REMOTE mailbox and
+ wants to process a mailbox on its home server>
+
+ C: B004 LOGOUT
+ S: * BYE IMAP4rev1 server logging out
+ S: B004 OK LOGOUT Completed
+
+ <Client continues with first connection>
+
+ C: A002 SELECT INBOX
+ S: * 16 EXISTS
+ S: * 2 RECENT
+ S: * OK [UNSEEN 10] Message 10 is first unseen
+ S: * OK [UIDVALIDITY 123456789]
+ S: * FLAGS (Answered Flagged Deleted Seen Draft)
+ S: * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (Answered Deleted Seen ]
+ S: A002 OK [READ-WRITE] Selected completed
+
+4.2. CREATE Referrals
+
+ An IMAP4 server MAY respond to the CREATE command with one or more
+ IMAP mailbox referrals, if it wishes to direct the client to issue
+ the CREATE against another server. The server can employ any means,
+ such as examining the hierarchy of the specified mailbox name, in
+ determining which server the mailbox should be created on.
+
+ Example:
+
+ C: A001 CREATE "SHARED/FOO"
+ S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/SHARED/FOO]
+ Mailbox should be created on remote server
+
+ Alternatively, because a home server is required to maintain a
+ listing of referred remote mailboxes, a server MAY allow the creation
+ of a mailbox that will ultimately reside on a remote server against
+ the home server, and provide referrals on subsequent commands that
+ manipulate the mailbox.
+
+ Example:
+
+ C: A001 CREATE "SHARED/FOO"
+ S: A001 OK CREATE succeeded
+
+ C: A002 SELECT "SHARED/FOO"
+ S: A002 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/SHARED/FOO]
+ Remote mailbox. Try SERVER2
+
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns Standards Track [Page 5]
+
+RFC 2193 IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals September 1997
+
+
+4.3. RENAME Referrals
+
+ An IMAP4 server MAY respond to the RENAME command with one or more
+ pairs of IMAP mailbox referrals. In each pair of IMAP mailbox
+ referrals, the first one is an URL to the existing mailbox name and
+ the second is an URL to the requested new mailbox name.
+
+ If within an IMAP mailbox referral pair, the existing and new mailbox
+ URLs are on different servers, the remote servers are unable to
+ perform the RENAME operation. To achieve the same behavior of
+ server RENAME, the client MAY issue the constituent CREATE, FETCH,
+ APPEND, and DELETE commands against both servers.
+
+ If within an IMAP mailbox referral pair, the existing and new mailbox
+ URLs are on the same server it is an indication that the currently
+ connected server is unable to perform the operation. The client can
+ simply re-issue the RENAME command on the remote server.
+
+ Example:
+
+ C: A001 RENAME FOO BAR
+ S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER1/FOO
+ IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/BAR] Unable to rename mailbox
+ across servers
+
+ Since the existing and new mailbox names are on different servers,
+ the client would be required to make a connection to both servers and
+ issue the constituent commands require to achieve the RENAME.
+
+ Example:
+
+ C: A001 RENAME FOO BAR
+ S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/FOO
+ IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/BAR] Unable to rename mailbox
+ located on SERVER2
+
+ Since both the existing and new mailbox are on the same remote
+ server, the client can simply make a connection to the remote server
+ and re-issue the RENAME command.
+
+4.4. COPY Referrals
+
+ An IMAP4 server MAY respond to the COPY command with one or more IMAP
+ mailbox referrals. This indicates that the destination mailbox is on
+ a remote server. To achieve the same behavior of a server COPY, the
+ client MAY issue the constituent FETCH and APPEND commands against
+ both servers.
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns Standards Track [Page 6]
+
+RFC 2193 IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals September 1997
+
+
+ Example:
+
+ C: A001 COPY 1 "SHARED/STUFF"
+ S: A001 NO [REFERRAL IMAP://user;AUTH=*@SERVER2/SHARED/STUFF]
+ Unable to copy message(s) to SERVER2.
+
+5.1 RLIST command
+
+ Arguments: reference name
+ mailbox name with possible wildcards
+
+ Responses: untagged responses: LIST
+
+ Result: OK - RLIST Completed
+ NO - RLIST Failure
+ BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
+
+ The RLIST command behaves identically to its LIST counterpart, except
+ remote mailboxes are returned in addition to local mailboxes in the
+ LIST responses.
+
+5.2 RLSUB Command
+
+ Arguments: reference name
+ mailbox name with possible wildcards
+
+ Responses: untagged responses: LSUB
+
+ Result: OK - RLSUB Completed
+ NO - RLSUB Failure
+ BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
+
+ The RLSUB command behaves identically to its LSUB counterpart, except
+ remote mailboxes are returned in addition to local mailboxes in the
+ LSUB responses.
+
+6. Formal Syntax
+
+ The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur
+ Form (BNF) as described in [ABNF].
+
+ list_mailbox = <list_mailbox> as defined in [RFC-2060]
+
+ mailbox = <mailbox> as defined in [RFC-2060]
+
+ mailbox_referral = <tag> SPACE "NO" SPACE
+ <referral_response_code> (text / text_mime2)
+ ; See [RFC-2060] for <tag>, text and text_mime2 definition
+
+
+
+Gahrns Standards Track [Page 7]
+
+RFC 2193 IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals September 1997
+
+
+ referral_response_code = "[" "REFERRAL" 1*(SPACE <url>) "]"
+ ; See [RFC-1738] for <url> definition
+
+ rlist = "RLIST" SPACE mailbox SPACE list_mailbox
+
+ rlsub = "RLSUB" SPACE mailbox SPACE list_mailbox
+
+6. Security Considerations
+
+ The IMAP4 referral mechanism makes use of IMAP URLs, and as such,
+ have the same security considerations as general internet URLs [RFC-
+ 1738], and in particular IMAP URLs [RFC-2192].
+
+ With the MAILBOX-REFERRALS capability, it is potentially easier to
+ write a rogue server that injects a bogus referral response that
+ directs a user to an incorrect mailbox. Although referrals reduce
+ the effort to write such a server, the referral response makes
+ detection of the intrusion easier.
+
+7. References
+
+ [RFC-2060], Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
+ 4rev1", RFC 2060, University of Washington, December 1996.
+
+ [RFC-2192], Newman, C., "IMAP URL Scheme", RFC 2192, Innosoft,
+ September 1997.
+
+ [RFC-1738], Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, "Uniform
+ Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, CERN, Xerox Corporation,
+ University of Minnesota, December 1994.
+
+ [RFC-2119], Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, Harvard University, March 1997.
+
+ [ABNF], DRUMS working group, Dave Crocker Editor, "Augmented BNF for
+ Syntax Specifications: ABNF", Work in Progress, Internet Mail
+ Consortium, April 1997.
+
+8. Acknowledgments
+
+ Many valuable suggestions were received from private discussions and
+ the IMAP4 mailing list. In particular, Raymond Cheng, Mark Crispin,
+ Mark Keasling, Chris Newman and Larry Osterman made significant
+ contributions to this document.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns Standards Track [Page 8]
+
+RFC 2193 IMAP4 Mailbox Referrals September 1997
+
+
+9. Author's Address
+
+ Mike Gahrns
+ Microsoft
+ One Microsoft Way
+ Redmond, WA, 98072
+
+ Phone: (206) 936-9833
+ EMail: mikega@microsoft.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Gahrns Standards Track [Page 9]
+
generated by cgit v1.2.3-70-g09d2 (git 2.47.0) at 2024-11-15 17:48:32 +0000