GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc1732

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]

/home/gen.uk/domains/wiki.gen.uk/public_html/data/pages/rfc/rfc1732.txt · Last modified: 1994/12/19 23:04 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki