summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/imap/docs/rfc/rfc5466.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'imap/docs/rfc/rfc5466.txt')
-rw-r--r--imap/docs/rfc/rfc5466.txt507
1 files changed, 507 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/imap/docs/rfc/rfc5466.txt b/imap/docs/rfc/rfc5466.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..d566a5f5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/imap/docs/rfc/rfc5466.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,507 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group A. Melnikov
+Request for Comments: 5466 C. King
+Category: Standards Track Isode Ltd
+ February 2009
+
+
+ IMAP4 Extension for Named Searches (Filters)
+
+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.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+ Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+ document authors. All rights reserved.
+
+ This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
+ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
+ Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
+ and restrictions with respect to this document.
+
+Abstract
+
+ The document defines a way to persistently store named IMAP (RFC
+ 3501) searches on the server. Such named searches can be
+ subsequently referenced in a SEARCH or any other command that accepts
+ a search criterion as a parameter.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction and Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
+ 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
+ 3. IMAP Protocol Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
+ 3.1. FILTER SEARCH Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 3.2. Managing Filters Using SETMETADATA/GETMETADATA Commands . . 4
+ 4. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+ 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
+ 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
+ 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+ 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
+
+
+
+
+
+Melnikov & King Standards Track [Page 1]
+
+RFC 5466 IMAP Filters February 2009
+
+
+1. Introduction and Overview
+
+ Persistent named searches described in this document allow clients to
+ save favorite searches on the server. Such saved searches can save
+ bandwidth for clients that need to regularly repeat them.
+
+ The FILTERS IMAP extension adds a new FILTER search criterion for
+ referencing persistent named searches (a.k.a. "filters"), as well as
+ reuses GETMETADATA/SETMETADATA commands [METADATA] for listing/
+ creating/updating/deleting such filters.
+
+ A filter can be private (only accessible to the logged-in user) or
+ public (accessible to all logged-in users). Both a private and a
+ public filter with the same name can exist at the same time. If both
+ filter types with the same name exist, the FILTER SEARCH criterion
+ (see Section 3.1) MUST use the value of the private filter;
+ otherwise, it MUST use the value of the filter that exists.
+
+ Let us call a pair of filter name and filter type a "typed filter".
+ Each typed filter can have a value (which is a valid IMAP SEARCH
+ criteria conforming to ABNF for the "search-criteria" non-terminal)
+ and an optional human-readable description. The SETMETADATA command
+ creates or updates the value and/or the description of a typed
+ filter.
+
+ Values of all search keys stored in a filter MUST be encoded in
+ UTF-8.
+
+2. Conventions Used in This Document
+
+ In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
+ server, respectively. If a single "C:" or "S:" label applies to
+ multiple lines, then the line breaks between those lines are for
+ editorial clarity only and are not part of the actual protocol
+ exchange.
+
+ 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 [RFC2119].
+
+ Basic familiarity with the METADATA-SERVER extension [METADATA] and
+ terms defined therein is required to understand this document.
+
+3. IMAP Protocol Changes
+
+ The IMAP extension for persistent named searches is present in any
+ IMAP4 implementation that advertises "FILTERS" as one of the
+ supported capabilities in the CAPABILITY response or response code.
+
+
+
+Melnikov & King Standards Track [Page 2]
+
+RFC 5466 IMAP Filters February 2009
+
+
+3.1. FILTER SEARCH Criterion
+
+ The FILTER criterion for the SEARCH command allows a client to
+ reference by name a filter stored on the server. Such filter was
+ created by setting the server annotation named "/private/filters/
+ values/<filter_name>" (or the server annotation "/shared/filters/
+ values/<filter_name>", if "/private/filters/values/<filter_name>"
+ doesn't exist) using the SETMETADATA command as described in
+ Section 3.2.
+
+ Syntax: FILTER <filter_name>
+
+ When the named filter exists, its search criterion (i.e., the
+ associated entry value) is inserted verbatim instead of the FILTER
+ search-key. For example, the following SEARCH command
+
+ C: a SEARCH UID 300:900 FILTER on-the-road SINCE "3-Dec-2002"
+
+ would be equivalent to the following
+
+ C: a SEARCH UID 300:900 OR SMALLER 5000 FROM "boss@example.com"
+ SINCE "3-Dec-2002"
+
+ assuming the filter "on-the-road" exists and contains the value 'OR
+ SMALLER 5000 FROM "boss@example.com"'.
+
+ A reference to a nonexistent or unaccessible (e.g., due to access
+ control restrictions) filter MUST cause failure of the SEARCH command
+ with the tagged NO response that includes the UNDEFINED-FILTER
+ response code followed by the name of the nonexistent/unaccessible
+ filter.
+
+ Note the server SHOULD verify that each search criterion referenced
+ by the FILTER search key is a full and correct search criterion. For
+ example, the server should fail the SEARCH command if its SEARCH
+ criterion references a filter containing "OR SMALLER" search
+ criterion, because this value is lacking one parameter and thus is
+ not a fully specified search criterion.
+
+ Note that a named filter itself can reference another filter using
+ the FILTER search-key. Implementations MUST be able to perform at
+ least 3 substitution passes on the SEARCH command criterion. If an
+ implementation allows for more passes, it MUST implement some kind of
+ loop detection. If an implementation detects a loop or still sees a
+ FILTER search-key after performing at least 3 substitutions, it MUST
+ behave as if the specified filter doesn't exist (as described above).
+
+
+
+
+
+Melnikov & King Standards Track [Page 3]
+
+RFC 5466 IMAP Filters February 2009
+
+
+ Note that use of the FILTER search key implies the CHARSET "UTF-8"
+ parameter to the SEARCH/UID SEARCH command. If the SEARCH/UID SEARCH
+ command includes the explicit CHARSET parameter with the value other
+ than "UTF-8" or "US-ASCII", then such command MUST result in the
+ tagged BAD response from the server. Such tagged response MUST
+ contain the BADCHARSET response code (see [RFC3501]).
+
+3.2. Managing Filters Using SETMETADATA/GETMETADATA Commands
+
+ Any server compliant with this document MUST either implement the
+ METADATA-SERVER (or METADATA) [METADATA] extension, or implement
+ SETMETADATA/GETMETADATA commands described in [METADATA] so that they
+ work for the case of empty mailbox name (i.e., for managing server
+ annotations) and for the entries specified in this section.
+
+ This document reserves two hierarchies of per-server entries under
+ the "/private/filters/values" and "/shared/filters/values" roots (see
+ [METADATA]) for storing filter values. The value of a "/private/
+ filters/values/<filter_name>" or a "/shared/filters/values/
+ <filter_name>" server annotation is an IMAP SEARCH criteria,
+ conforming to ABNF for the "search-criteria" non-terminal. A name of
+ a filter is governed by the ABNF for the "filter-name" non-terminal.
+
+ Note that values of all search keys stored in these entries MUST be
+ encoded in UTF-8.
+
+ A new filter named "<filter_name>" can be created (or an existing
+ filter can be modified) by storing a non-NIL value in the "/private/
+ filters/values/<filter_name>" server entry (or in the "/shared/
+ filters/values/<filter_name>") using the SETMETADATA [METADATA]
+ command. The server SHOULD verify that each search criterion stored
+ in such a server entry is a full and correct search criterion.
+
+ A filter can be deleted by storing the NIL value in both the
+ "/private/filters/values/<filter_name>" and the "/shared/filters/
+ values/<filter_name>" entries.
+
+ A filter can be renamed by first creating a filter with the new name
+ (that has the same value as the old one) and then deleting the filter
+ with the old one.
+
+ If both "/private/filters/values/<filter_name>" and "/shared/filters/
+ values/<filter_name>" server annotations exist, then the value of the
+ "/private/filters/values/<filter_name>" is used when evaluating the
+ corresponding FILTER SEARCH key (see Section 3.1). Otherwise the
+ non-NIL (existent) value is used.
+
+
+
+
+
+Melnikov & King Standards Track [Page 4]
+
+RFC 5466 IMAP Filters February 2009
+
+
+ If the server is unable to create a new typed filter because the
+ maximum number of allowed filters has already been reached, the
+ server MUST return a tagged NO response with a "[METADATA TOOMANY]"
+ response code, as defined in [METADATA].
+
+ C: a007 SETMETADATA "" ("/private/filters/values/on-the-road"
+ "OR SMALLER 5000 FROM \"boss@example.com\"")
+ S: a007 OK SETMETADATA complete
+
+ Client implementation note: As multiple clients might read and write
+ filter values, it is possible that one client will use a SEARCH key
+ that might not be recognized by another client that tries to present
+ a user interface for editing a filter value. In order to help other
+ clients to (partially) parse filter values for editing purposes, a
+ client storing a filter value SHOULD use () around any SEARCH key not
+ defined in [RFC3501]. For example, if there is an IMAP extension
+ that defines a new x-dsfa SEARCH key that takes 2 parameters, then
+ the following SEARCH criterion 'from "@example.com>" x-dsfa from 5'
+ should be stored as 'from "@example.com>" (x-dsfa from 5)'.
+
+ Note that filter names are restricted to a subset of US-ASCII, as
+ described in Section 4. So they might not always be meaningful to
+ users and thus not necessarily suitable for display purposes. In
+ order to help with storing human-readable descriptions of filters,
+ this document also reserves two hierarchies of server entries under
+ the "/private/filters/descriptions" and "/shared/filters/
+ descriptions" roots. The value of a "/private/filters/descriptions/
+ <filter_name>" or a "/shared/filters/descriptions/<filter_name>"
+ server annotation is a human-readable description for the
+ <filter_name> filter, encoded in UTF-8 [UTF-8]. If the "/private/
+ filters/descriptions/<filter_name>" server annotation exists, its
+ value is used by the client as the filter description. Otherwise,
+ the value of the "/shared/filters/descriptions/<filter_name>" server
+ annotation is used as the filter description. In the absence of both
+ the "/private/filters/descriptions/<filter_name>" and the "/shared/
+ filters/descriptions/<filter_name>" entries, the client MAY display
+ the name of the filter as its description.
+
+ The description string SHOULD be annotated with one or more language
+ tags [RFC4646] as specified in Chapter 16.9 of [Unicode]. In the
+ absence of any language tag, the "i-default" [RFC2277] language
+ SHOULD be assumed. Description in multiple languages MAY be present
+ in a single description string. This is done by concatenating
+ descriptions in multiple languages into a single string, each
+ description prefixed with its language tag, for example
+ "<ru><...description in Russian...><fr-ca><...description in
+ French...>". Note that here <ru> is a language tag consisting of 3
+ Unicode characters: <U+E0001>, <U+E0072>, <U+E0075>; and <fr-ca> is a
+
+
+
+Melnikov & King Standards Track [Page 5]
+
+RFC 5466 IMAP Filters February 2009
+
+
+ language tag consisting of 6 Unicode characters: <U+E0001>,
+ <U+E0066>, <U+E0072>, <U+E002D>, <U+E0063>, <U+E0061>.
+
+4. Formal Syntax
+
+ The following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur
+ Form (ABNF) notation as specified in [ABNF].
+
+ Non-terminals referenced but not defined below are as defined by
+ [RFC3501] or [IMAPABNF].
+
+ Except as noted otherwise, all alphabetic characters are case-
+ insensitive. The use of upper or lower case characters to define
+ token strings is for editorial clarity only. Implementations MUST
+ accept these strings in a case-insensitive fashion.
+
+ capability =/ "FILTERS"
+
+ search-criteria = search-key *(SP search-key)
+
+ search-key =/ "FILTER" SP filter-name
+ ;; New SEARCH criterion for referencing filters
+
+ filter-name = 1*<any ATOM-CHAR except "/">
+ ;; Note that filter-name disallows UTF-8 or
+ ;; the following characters: "(", ")", "{",
+ ;; " ", "%", "*", "]". See definition of
+ ;; ATOM-CHAR [RFC3501].
+
+ resp-text-code =/ "UNDEFINED-FILTER" SP filter-name
+
+5. Security Considerations
+
+ General issues relevant to [RFC3501] (in particular to the SEARCH
+ command) and METADATA-SERVER extension [METADATA] are also relevant
+ to this document.
+
+ Note that excessive use of filters can potentially simplify denial-
+ of-service attacks, especially if combined with poor implementations
+ and lack of loop detection (i.e., detection of filters referencing
+ each other to create a loop). Servers that allow for anonymous
+ access SHOULD NOT allow anonymous users to create/edit/delete
+ filters.
+
+ Also note that stored filters can potentially disclose personal
+ information about users. When confidentiality of such information is
+ important, clients MUST use TLS and/or SASL security layer (or
+ similar) as recommended in [RFC3501]. Also, clients should use
+
+
+
+Melnikov & King Standards Track [Page 6]
+
+RFC 5466 IMAP Filters February 2009
+
+
+ private filters instead of public, unless they desire to share such
+ information with other users.
+
+ As always, it is important to thoroughly test clients and servers
+ when implementing this extension.
+
+6. IANA Considerations
+
+ IMAP4 capabilities are registered by publishing a Standards Track or
+ IESG-approved Experimental RFC. The IMAP4 capabilities registry is
+ available from http://www.iana.org.
+
+ This document defines the FILTERS IMAP capability. IANA has added it
+ to the registry.
+
+ IANA has added the following 4 entries to the [METADATA] registry:
+
+ To: iana@iana.org
+ Subject: IMAP METADATA Entry Registration
+ Type: Server
+ Name: /private/filters/values/<filter_name>
+ Description: Contains an IMAP SEARCH criteria. Defined in RFC 5466.
+ Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
+ Contact person: Alexey Melnikov
+ Email: alexey.melnikov@isode.com
+
+ To: iana@iana.org
+ Subject: IMAP METADATA Entry Registration
+ Type: Server
+ Name: /shared/filters/values/<filter_name>
+ Description: Contains an IMAP SEARCH criterion. Defined in RFC
+ 5466.
+ Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
+ Contact person: Alexey Melnikov
+ Email: alexey.melnikov@isode.com
+
+ To: iana@iana.org
+ Subject: IMAP METADATA Entry Registration
+ Type: Server
+ Name: /private/filters/descriptions/<filter_name>
+ Description: Contains a user-specific human-readable description of
+ a named SEARCH criterion stored in the /private/filters/values/
+ <filter_name> or /shared/filters/values/<filter_name> annotation.
+ The value is in UTF-8. Defined in RFC 5466.
+ Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
+ Contact person: Alexey Melnikov
+ Email: alexey.melnikov@isode.com
+
+
+
+
+Melnikov & King Standards Track [Page 7]
+
+RFC 5466 IMAP Filters February 2009
+
+
+ To: iana@iana.org
+ Subject: IMAP METADATA Entry Registration
+ Type: Server
+ Name: /shared/filters/descriptions/<filter_name>
+ Description: Contains a global (shared among all users) human-
+ readable description of a named SEARCH criterion stored in the
+ /private/filters/values/<filter_name> or /shared/filters/values/
+ <filter_name> annotation. The value is in UTF-8. Defined in RFC
+ 5466.
+ Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
+ Contact person: Alexey Melnikov
+ Email: alexey.melnikov@isode.com
+
+7. Acknowledgments
+
+ Thanks to David Cridland, Arnt Gulbrandsen, Chris Newman, and Timo
+ Sirainen for comments and suggestions on this document. Special
+ thank you to Brian E. Carpenter for the GenArt review.
+
+8. Normative References
+
+ [ABNF] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, Ed., "Augmented BNF for
+ Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
+ January 2008.
+
+ [IMAPABNF] Melnikov, A. and C. Daboo, "Collected Extensions to IMAP4
+ ABNF", RFC 4466, April 2006.
+
+ [METADATA] Daboo, C., "The IMAP METADATA Extension", RFC 5464,
+ February 2009.
+
+ [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+ [RFC2277] Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
+ Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.
+
+ [RFC3501] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
+ 4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
+
+ [RFC4646] Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Tags for Identifying
+ Languages", BCP 47, RFC 4646, September 2006.
+
+ [UTF-8] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
+ 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
+
+ [Unicode] "The Unicode Standard 5.0", Unicode 5.0, 2007,
+ <http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.0.0/>.
+
+
+
+Melnikov & King Standards Track [Page 8]
+
+RFC 5466 IMAP Filters February 2009
+
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+ Alexey Melnikov
+ Isode Ltd
+ 5 Castle Business Village
+ 36 Station Road
+ Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2BX
+ UK
+
+ EMail: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com
+
+
+ Curtis King
+ Isode Ltd
+ 5 Castle Business Village
+ 36 Station Road
+ Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2BX
+ UK
+
+ EMail: Curtis.King@isode.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Melnikov & King Standards Track [Page 9]
+