rfc1733.txt
上传用户:ycwykj01
上传日期:2007-01-04
资源大小:1819k
文件大小:6k
- Network Working Group M. Crispin
- Request for Comments: 1733 University of Washington
- Category: Informational December 1994
- DISTRIBUTED ELECTRONIC MAIL MODELS IN IMAP4
- 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.
- Distributed Electronic Mail Models
- There are three fundamental models of client/server email: offline,
- online, and disconnected use. IMAP4 can be used in any one of these
- three models.
- The offline model is the most familiar form of client/server email
- today, and is used by protocols such as POP-3 (RFC 1225) and UUCP.
- In this model, a client application periodically connects to a
- server. It downloads all the pending messages to the client machine
- and deletes these from the server. Thereafter, all mail processing
- is local to the client. This model is store-and-forward; it moves
- mail on demand from an intermediate server (maildrop) to a single
- destination machine.
- The online model is most commonly used with remote filesystem
- protocols such as NFS. In this model, a client application
- manipulates mailbox data on a server machine. A connection to the
- server is maintained throughout the session. No mailbox data are
- kept on the client; the client retrieves data from the server as is
- needed. IMAP4 introduces a form of the online model that requires
- considerably less network bandwidth than a remote filesystem
- protocol, and provides the opportunity for using the server for CPU
- or I/O intensive functions such as parsing and searching.
- The disconnected use model is a hybrid of the offline and online
- models, and is used by protocols such as PCMAIL (RFC 1056). In this
- model, a client user downloads some set of messages from the server,
- manipulates them offline, then at some later time uploads the
- changes. The server remains the authoritative repository of the
- messages. The problems of synchronization (particularly when
- multiple clients are involved) are handled through the means of
- unique identifiers for each message.
- Crispin [Page 1]
- RFC 1733 IMAP4 - Model December 1994
- Each of these models have their own strengths and weaknesses:
- Feature Offline Online Disc
- ------- ------- ------ ----
- Can use multiple clients NO YES YES
- Minimum use of server connect time YES NO YES
- Minimum use of server resources YES NO NO
- Minimum use of client disk resources NO YES NO
- Multiple remote mailboxes NO YES YES
- Fast startup NO YES NO
- Mail processing when not online YES NO YES
- Although IMAP4 has its origins as a protocol designed to accommodate
- the online model, it can support the other two models as well. This
- makes possible the creation of clients that can be used in any of the
- three models. For example, a user may wish to switch between the
- online and disconnected models on a regular basis (e.g. owing to
- travel).
- IMAP4 is designed to transmit message data on demand, and to provide
- the facilities necessary for a client to decide what data it needs at
- any particular time. There is generally no need to do a wholesale
- transfer of an entire mailbox or even of the complete text of a
- message. This makes a difference in situations where the mailbox is
- large, or when the link to the server is slow.
- More specifically, IMAP4 supports server-based RFC 822 and MIME
- processing. With this information, it is possible for a client to
- determine in advance whether it wishes to retrieve a particular
- message or part of a message. For example, a user connected to an
- IMAP4 server via a dialup link can determine that a message has a
- 2000 byte text segment and a 40 megabyte video segment, and elect to
- fetch only the text segment.
- In IMAP4, the client/server relationship lasts only for the duration
- of the TCP connection. There is no registration of clients. Except
- for any unique identifiers used in disconnected use operation, the
- client initially has no knowledge of mailbox state and learns it from
- the IMAP4 server when a mailbox is selected. This initial transfer
- is minimal; the client requests additional state data as it needs.
- As noted above, the choice for the location of mailbox data depends
- upon the model chosen. The location of message state (e.g. whether
- or not a message has been read or answered) is also determined by the
- model, and is not necessarily the same as the location of the mailbox
- data. For example, in the online model message state can be co-
- located with mailbox data; it can also be located elsewhere (on the
- client or on a third agent) using unique identifiers to achieve
- Crispin [Page 2]
- RFC 1733 IMAP4 - Model December 1994
- common reference across sessions. The latter is particularly useful
- with a server that exports public data such as netnews and does not
- maintain per-user state.
- The IMAP4 protocol provides the generality to implement these
- different models. This is done by means of server and (especially)
- client configuration, and not by requiring changes to the protocol or
- the implementation of the protocol.
- Security Considerations
- Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
- Author's Address:
- Mark R. Crispin
- Networks and Distributed Computing, JE-30
- University of Washington
- Seattle, WA 98195
- Phone: (206) 543-5762
- EMail: MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU
- Crispin [Page 3]