rfc1732.txt
上传用户:ycwykj01
上传日期:2007-01-04
资源大小:1819k
文件大小:9k
- Network Working Group M. Crispin
- Request for Comments: 1732 University of Washington
- Category: Informational December 1994
- IMAP4 COMPATIBILITY WITH IMAP2 AND IMAP2BIS
- 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.
- Introduction
- This is a summary of hints and recommendations to enable an IMAP4
- implementation to interoperate with implementations that conform to
- earlier specifications. None of these hints and recommendations are
- required by the IMAP4 specification; implementors must decide for
- themselves whether they want their implementation to fail if it
- encounters old software.
- IMAP4 has been designed to be upwards compatible with earlier
- specifications. For the most part, IMAP4 facilities that were not in
- earlier specifications should be invisible to clients unless the
- client asks for the facility.
- In some cases, older servers may support some of the capabilities
- listed as being "new in IMAP4" as experimental extensions to the
- IMAP2 protocol described in RFC 1176.
- This information may not be complete; it reflects current knowledge
- of server and client implementations as well as "folklore" acquired
- in the evolution of the protocol.
- Crispin [Page 1]
- RFC 1732 IMAP4 - Compatibility December 1994
- IMAP4 client interoperability with old servers
- In general, a client should be able to discover whether an IMAP2
- server supports a facility by trial-and-error; if an attempt to use a
- facility generates a BAD response, the client can assume that the
- server does not support the facility.
- A quick way to check whether a server implementation supports the
- IMAP4 specification is to try the CAPABILITY command. An OK response
- that includes the IMAP4 capability value indicates a server that
- supports IMAP4; a BAD response or one without the IMAP4 capability
- value indicates an older server.
- The following is a list of facilities that are only in IMAP4, and
- suggestions for how new clients might interoperate with old servers:
- CAPABILITY command
- A BAD response to this command indicates that the server
- implements IMAP2 (or IMAP2bis) and not IMAP4.
- AUTHENTICATE command.
- Use the LOGIN command.
- LSUB and LIST commands
- Try the RFC 1176 FIND command.
- * in a sequence
- Use the number of messages in the mailbox from the EXISTS
- unsolicited response.
- SEARCH extensions (character set, additional criteria)
- Reformulate the search request using only the searching
- options listed in search_old in the IMAP4 grammar. This may
- entail doing multiple searches to achieve the desired
- results.
- BODYSTRUCTURE fetch data item
- Try to fetch the non-extensible BODY data item.
- body section number 0
- Fetch the entire message and extract the header.
- RFC822.HEADER.LINES and RFC822.HEADER.LINES.NOT fetch data items
- Use RFC822.HEADER and remove the unwanted information.
- BODY.PEEK[section], RFC822.PEEK, and RFC822.TEXT.PEEK fetch data
- items Use the corresponding non-PEEK versions and manually
- clear the Seen flag as necessary.
- Crispin [Page 2]
- RFC 1732 IMAP4 - Compatibility December 1994
- UID fetch data item and the UID commands
- No equivalent capabilitity exists in older servers.
- FLAGS.SILENT, +FLAGS.SILENT, and -FLAGS.SILENT store data items
- Use the corresponding non-SILENT versions and ignore the
- untagged FETCH responses which com eback.
- The following IMAP4 facilities were introduced in the experimental
- IMAP2bis revisions to RFC-1176, and may be present in a server that
- does not support the CAPABILITY command:
- CREATE, DELETE, and RENAME commands
- To test whether these commands are present, try a CREATE
- INBOX command. If the response is NO, these commands are
- supported by the server. If the response is BAD, they are
- not. Older servers without the CREATE capability may sup-
- port implicit creation of a mailbox by a COPY command with a
- non-existant name as the destination.
- APPEND command
- To test whether this command is present, try to append a
- zero-length stream to a mailbox name that is known not to
- exist (or at least, highly unlikely to exist) on the remote
- system.
- SUBSCRIBE and UNSUBSCRIBE commands
- Try the form of these commands with the optional MAILBOX
- keyword.
- EXAMINE command
- Use the SELECT command instead.
- flags and internal date argument to APPEND command
- Try the APPEND without any flag list and internal date argu-
- ments.
- BODY, BODY[section], and FULL fetch data items
- Use RFC822.TEXT and ALL instead. Server does not support
- MIME.
- PARTIAL command
- Use the appropriate FETCH command and ignore the unwanted
- data.
- IMAP4 client implementations must accept all responses and data for-
- mats documented in the IMAP4 specification, including those labeled
- Crispin [Page 3]
- RFC 1732 IMAP4 - Compatibility December 1994
- as obsolete. This includes the COPY and STORE unsolicited responses
- and the old format of dates and times. In particular, client imple-
- mentations must not treat a date/time as a fixed format string; nor
- may they assume that the time begins at a particular octet.
- IMAP4 client implementations must not depend upon the presence of any
- server extensions that are not in the base IMAP4 specification.
- The experimental IMAP2bis version specified that the TRYCREATE spe-
- cial information token is sent as a separate unsolicited OK response
- instead of inside the NO response.
- The FIND BBOARDS, FIND ALL.BBOARDS, and BBOARD commands of RFC 1176
- are removed from IMAP4. There is no equivalent to the bboard com-
- mands, which provided a separate namespace with implicit restrictions
- on what may be done in that namespace.
- Older server implementations may automatically create the destination
- mailbox on COPY if that mailbox does not already exist. This was how
- a new mailbox was created in older specifications. If the server
- does not support the CREATE command (see above for how to test for
- this), it will probably create a mailbox on COPY.
- Older server implementations may not preserve flags or internal dates
- on COPY. Some server implementations may not permit the preservation
- of certain flags on COPY or their setting with APPEND as site policy.
- Crispin [Page 4]
- RFC 1732 IMAP4 - Compatibility December 1994
- IMAP4 server interoperability with old clients
- In general, there should be no interoperation problem between a
- server conforming to the IMAP4 specification and a well-written
- client that conforms to an earlier specification. Known problems are
- noted below:
- Poor wording in the description of the CHECK command in earlier
- specifications implied that a CHECK command is the way to get the
- current number of messages in the mailbox. This is incorrect. A
- CHECK command does not necessarily result in an EXISTS response.
- Clients must remember the most recent EXISTS value sent from the
- server, and should not generate unnecessary CHECK commands.
- An incompatibility exists with COPY in IMAP4. COPY in IMAP4
- servers does not automatically create the destination mailbox if
- that mailbox does not already exist. This may cause problems with
- old clients that expect automatic mailbox creation in COPY.
- The PREAUTH unsolicited response is new in IMAP4. It is highly
- unlikely that an old client would ever see this response.
- The format of dates and times has changed due to the impending end
- of the century. Clients that fail to accept a four-digit year or
- a signed four-digit timezone value will not work properly with
- IMAP4.
- An incompatibility exists with the use of "" in quoted strings.
- This is best avoided by using literals instead of quoted strings
- if "" or <"> is embedded in the string.
- 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 5]