GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc5182

Network Working Group A. Melnikov Request for Comments: 5182 Isode Ltd. Updates: 3501 March 2008 Category: Standards Track

       IMAP Extension for Referencing the Last SEARCH Result

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.

Abstract

 Many IMAP clients use the result of a SEARCH command as the input to
 perform another operation, for example, fetching the found messages,
 deleting them, or copying them to another mailbox.
 This can be achieved using standard IMAP operations described in RFC
 3501; however, this would be suboptimal.  The server will send the
 list of found messages to the client; after that, the client will
 have to parse the list, reformat it, and send it back to the server.
 The client can't pipeline the SEARCH command with the subsequent
 command, and, as a result, the server might not be able to perform
 some optimizations.
 This document proposes an IMAP extension that allows a client to tell
 a server to use the result of a SEARCH (or Unique Identifier (UID)
 SEARCH) command as an input to any subsequent command.

1. Introduction

 Many IMAP clients use the result of a SEARCH command as the input to
 perform another operation, for example, fetching the found messages,
 deleting them, or copying them to another mailbox.
 This document proposes an IMAP extension that allows a client to tell
 a server to use the result of a SEARCH (or UID SEARCH) command as an
 input to any subsequent command.
 The SEARCH result reference extension defines a new SEARCH result
 option [IMAPABNF] "SAVE" that tells the server to remember the result
 of the SEARCH or UID SEARCH command (as well as any command based on
 SEARCH, e.g., SORT and THREAD [SORT]) and store it in an internal

Melnikov Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 5182 Last SEARCH Result Reference March 2008

 variable that we will reference as the "search result variable".  The
 client can use the "$" marker to reference the content of this
 internal variable.  The "$" marker can be used instead of message
 sequence or UID sequence in order to indicate that the server should
 substitute it with the list of messages from the search result
 variable.  Thus, the client can use the result of the latest
 remembered SEARCH command as a parameter to another command.  The
 search result marker has several advantages:
  • it avoids wasted bandwidth and associated delay;
  • it allows the client to pipeline a SEARCH [IMAP4] command with a

subsequent FETCH/STORE/COPY/SEARCH [IMAP4] or UID EXPUNGE

      [UIDPLUS] command;
  • the client doesn't need to spend time reformatting the result of

a SEARCH command into a message set used in the subsequent

      command;
  • it allows the server to perform optimizations. For example, if

the server can execute several pipelined commands in parallel

      (or out of order), presence of the search result marker can
      allow the server to decide which commands may or may not be
      executed out of order.
 In absence of any other SEARCH result option, the SAVE result option
 also suppresses any SEARCH response that would have been otherwise
 returned by the SEARCH command.

1.1. Conventions Used in This Document

 In examples, "C:" indicates lines sent by a client that is connected
 to a server.  "S:" indicates lines sent by the server to the client.
 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 [KEYWORDS].
 Explanatory comments in examples start with // and are not part of
 the protocol.

Melnikov Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 5182 Last SEARCH Result Reference March 2008

2. Overview

2.1. Normative Description of the SEARCHRES Extension

 The SEARCH result reference extension described in this document is
 present in any IMAP4 server implementation that returns "SEARCHRES"
 as one of the supported capabilities in the CAPABILITY command
 response.  Any such server MUST also implement the [ESEARCH]
 extension.
 Upon successful completion of a SELECT or an EXAMINE command (after
 the tagged OK response), the current search result variable is reset
 to the empty sequence.
 A successful SEARCH command with the SAVE result option sets the
 value of the search result variable to the list of messages found in
 the SEARCH command.  For example, if no messages were found, the
 search result variable will contain the empty list.
 Any of the following SEARCH commands MUST NOT change the search
 result variable:
    o a SEARCH command that caused the server to return the BAD tagged
      response,
    o a SEARCH command with no SAVE result option that caused the
      server to return NO tagged response,
    o a successful SEARCH command with no SAVE result option.
 A SEARCH command with the SAVE result option that caused the server
 to return the NO tagged response sets the value of the search result
 variable to the empty sequence.
 When a message listed in the search result variable is EXPUNGEd, it
 is automatically removed from the list.  Implementors are reminded
 that if the server stores the list as a list of message numbers, it
 MUST automatically adjust them when notifying the client about
 expunged messages, as described in Section 7.4.1 of [IMAP4].
 If the server decides to send a new UIDVALIDITY value while the
 mailbox is opened, this causes resetting of the search variable to
 the empty list.

Melnikov Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 5182 Last SEARCH Result Reference March 2008

 Note that even if the "$" marker contains the empty list of messages,
 it must be treated by all commands accepting message sets as
 parameters as a valid, but non-matching list of messages.  For
 example, the "FETCH $" command would return a tagged OK response and
 no FETCH responses.  See also the Example 5 below.
 Note that even if the "$" marker contains the empty list of messages,
 it must be treated as a valid but non-matching list of messages, by
 all commands that accept message sets as parameters.
 Implementation note: server implementors should note that "$" can
 reference IMAP message sequences or UID sequences, depending on the
 context where it is used.  For example, the "$" marker can be set as
 a result of a SEARCH (SAVE) command and used as a parameter to a UID
 FETCH command (which accepts a UID sequence, not a message sequence),
 or the "$" marker can be set as a result of a UID SEARCH (SAVE)
 command and used as a parameter to a FETCH command (which accepts a
 message sequence, not a UID sequence).

2.2. Examples

 1) The following example demonstrates how the client can use the
    result of a SEARCH command to FETCH headers of interesting
    messages:
 Example 1:
          C: A282 SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) FLAGGED SINCE 1-Feb-1994
              NOT FROM "Smith"
          S: A282 OK SEARCH completed, result saved
          C: A283 FETCH $ (UID INTERNALDATE FLAGS RFC822.HEADER)
          S: * 2 FETCH (UID 14 ...
          S: * 84 FETCH (UID 100 ...
          S: * 882 FETCH (UID 1115 ...
          S: A283 OK completed
 The client can also pipeline the two commands:
 Example 2:
          C: A282 SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) FLAGGED SINCE 1-Feb-1994
              NOT FROM "Smith"
          C: A283 FETCH $ (UID INTERNALDATE FLAGS RFC822.HEADER)
          S: A282 OK SEARCH completed
          S: * 2 FETCH (UID 14 ...
          S: * 84 FETCH (UID 100 ...
          S: * 882 FETCH (UID 1115 ...
          S: A283 OK completed

Melnikov Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 5182 Last SEARCH Result Reference March 2008

 2) The following example demonstrates that the result of one SEARCH
    command can be used as input to another SEARCH command:
 Example 3:
          C: A300 SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) SINCE 1-Jan-2004
              NOT FROM "Smith"
          S: A300 OK SEARCH completed
          C: A301 UID SEARCH UID $ SMALLER 4096
          S: * SEARCH 17 900 901
          S: A301 OK completed
 Note that the second command in Example 3 can be replaced with:
          C: A301 UID SEARCH $ SMALLER 4096
 and the result of the command would be the same.
 3) The following example shows that the "$"
    marker can be combined with other message numbers using the OR
    SEARCH criterion.
 Example 4:
          C: P282 SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) SINCE 1-Feb-1994
              NOT FROM "Smith"
          S: P282 OK SEARCH completed
          C: P283 SEARCH CHARSET UTF-8 (OR $ 1,3000:3021) TEXT {8}
          C: YYYYYYYY
          S: * SEARCH 882 1102 3003 3005 3006
          S: P283 OK completed
 Note: Since this document format is restricted to 7-bit ASCII text,
 it is not possible to show actual UTF-8 data.  The "YYYYYYYY" is a
 placeholder for what would be 8 octets of 8-bit data in an actual
 transaction.

Melnikov Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 5182 Last SEARCH Result Reference March 2008

 4) The following example demonstrates that a failed SEARCH sets the
    search result variable to the empty list.
 Example 5:
          C: B282 SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) SINCE 1-Feb-1994
              NOT FROM "Smith"
          S: B282 OK SEARCH completed
          C: B283 SEARCH CHARSET KOI8-R (OR $ 1,3000:3021) TEXT {4}
          C: XXXX
          S: B283 NO [BADCHARSET UTF-8] KOI8-R is not supported
          //After this command the saved result variable contains
          //no messages.  A client that wants to reissue the B283
          //SEARCH command with another CHARSET would have to reissue
          //the B282 command as well.  One possible workaround for
          //this is to include the desired CHARSET parameter
          //in the earliest SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) command in a
          //sequence of related SEARCH commands.
          //A better approach might be to always use CHARSET UTF-8
          //instead.
 Note: Since this document format is restricted to 7-bit ASCII text,
 it is not possible to show actual KOI8-R data.  The "XXXX" is a
 placeholder for what would be 4 octets of 8-bit data in an actual
 transaction.
 5) The following example demonstrates that it is not an error to use
    the "$" marker when it contains no messages.
 Example 6:
          C: E282 SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) SINCE 28-Oct-2006
              NOT FROM "Eric"
          C: E283 COPY $ "Other Messages"
          //The "$" contains no messages
          S: E282 OK SEARCH completed
          S: E283 OK COPY completed, nothing copied

2.3. Multiple Commands in Progress

 Use of a SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) command followed by a command using the
 "$" marker creates direct dependency between the two commands.  As
 directed by Section 5.5 of [IMAP4], a server MUST execute the two
 commands in the order they were received.  (A server capable of
 out-of-order execution can in some cases execute the two commands in
 parallel, for example, if a SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) is followed by
 "SEARCH $", the search criteria from the first command can be
 directly substituted into the second command.)

Melnikov Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 5182 Last SEARCH Result Reference March 2008

 A client supporting this extension MAY pipeline a SEARCH RETURN
 (SAVE) command with one or more command using the "$" marker, as long
 as this doesn't create an ambiguity, as described in Section 5.5 of
 [IMAP4].
 Example 7:
          C: F282 SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) KEYWORD $Junk
          C: F283 COPY $ "Junk"
          C: F284 STORE $ +FLAGS.Silent (\Deleted)
          S: F282 OK SEARCH completed
          S: F283 OK COPY completed
          S: F284 OK STORE completed
 Example 8:
          C: G282 SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) KEYWORD $Junk
          C: G283 SEARCH RETURN (ALL) SINCE 28-Oct-2006
              FROM "Eric"
          //The server can execute the two SEARCH commands
          //in any order, as they don't have any dependency.
          //Note that the second command is making use of
          //the [ESEARCH] extension.
          S: * ESEARCH (TAG "G283") ALL 3:15,27,29:103
          S: G283 OK SEARCH completed
          S: G282 OK SEARCH completed
 The following example demonstrates that the result of the second
 SEARCH always overrides the result of the first.
 Example 9:
             C: H282 SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) KEYWORD $Junk
             C: H283 SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) SINCE 28-Oct-2006
                 FROM "Eric"
             S: H282 OK SEARCH completed
             S: H283 OK SEARCH completed

2.4. Interaction with ESEARCH Extension

 Servers that implement the extension defined in this document MUST
 implement [ESEARCH] and conform to additional requirements listed in
 this section.
 The SAVE result option doesn't change whether the server would return
 items corresponding to MIN, MAX, ALL, or COUNT [ESEARCH] result
 options.

Melnikov Standards Track [Page 7] RFC 5182 Last SEARCH Result Reference March 2008

 When the SAVE result option is combined with the MIN or MAX [ESEARCH]
 result option, and none of the other ESEARCH result options are
 present, the corresponding MIN/MAX is returned (if the search result
 is not empty), but the "$" marker would contain a single message as
 returned in the MIN/MAX return item.
 If the SAVE result option is combined with both MIN and MAX result
 options, and none of the other ESEARCH result options are present,
 the "$" marker would contain one or two messages as returned in the
 MIN/MAX return items.
 If the SAVE result option is combined with the ALL and/or COUNT
 result option(s), the "$" marker would always contain all messages
 found by the SEARCH or UID SEARCH command.  (Note that the last rule
 might affect ESEARCH implementations that optimize how the COUNT
 result is constructed.)
 The following table summarizes the additional requirement on ESEARCH
 server implementations described in this section.
          +----------------+-------------------+
          | Combination of | "$" marker value  |
          |  Result option |                   |
          +----------------+-------------------+
          |   SAVE MIN     |        MIN        |
          +----------------+-------------------+
          |   SAVE MAX     |        MAX        |
          +----------------+-------------------+
          |   SAVE MIN MAX |     MIN & MAX     |
          +----------------+-------------------+
          |   SAVE * [m]   | all found messages|
          +----------------+-------------------+
          where  '*'  means "ALL" and/or "COUNT"
                 '[m]' means optional "MIN" and/or "MAX"

Melnikov Standards Track [Page 8] RFC 5182 Last SEARCH Result Reference March 2008

 The following example demonstrates behavioral difference for
 different combinations of ESEARCH result options.  Explanatory
 comments start with // and are not part of the protocol:
 Example 10:
            C: C282 SEARCH RETURN (ALL) SINCE 12-Feb-2006
                NOT FROM "Smith"
            S: * ESEARCH (TAG "C283") ALL 2,10:15,21
          //$ value hasn't changed
            S: C282 OK SEARCH completed
            C: C283 SEARCH RETURN (ALL SAVE) SINCE 12-Feb-2006
                NOT FROM "Smith"
            S: * ESEARCH (TAG "C283") ALL 2,10:15,21
          //$ value is 2,10:15,21
            S: C283 OK SEARCH completed
            C: C284 SEARCH RETURN (SAVE MIN) SINCE 12-Feb-2006
                NOT FROM "Smith"
            S: * ESEARCH (TAG "C284") MIN 2
          //$ value is 2
            S: C284 OK SEARCH completed
            C: C285 SEARCH RETURN (MAX SAVE MIN) SINCE
                12-Feb-2006 NOT FROM "Smith"
            S: * ESEARCH (TAG "C285") MIN 2 MAX 21
          //$ value is 2,21
            S: C285 OK SEARCH completed
            C: C286 SEARCH RETURN (MAX SAVE MIN COUNT)
                SINCE 12-Feb-2006 NOT FROM "Smith"
            S: * ESEARCH (TAG "C286") MIN 2 MAX 21 COUNT 8
          //$ value is 2,10:15,21
            S: C286 OK SEARCH completed
            C: C286 SEARCH RETURN (ALL SAVE MIN) SINCE
                12-Feb-2006 NOT FROM "Smith"
            S: * ESEARCH (TAG "C286") MIN 2 ALL 2,10:15,21
          //$ value is 2,10:15,21
            S: C286 OK SEARCH completed

Melnikov Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 5182 Last SEARCH Result Reference March 2008

2.5. Refusing to Save Search Results

 In some cases, the server MAY refuse to save a SEARCH (SAVE) result,
 for example, if an internal limit on the number of saved results is
 reached.
 In this case, the server MUST return a tagged NO response containing
 the NOTSAVED response code and set the search result variable to the
 empty sequence, as described in Section 2.1.

3. 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 in [IMAP4] 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         =/ "SEARCHRES"
                            ;; capability is defined in [IMAP4]
       sequence-set       =/ seq-last-command
                            ;; extends sequence-set to allow for
                            ;; "result of the last command" indicator.
       seq-last-command   = "$"
       search-return-opt  = "SAVE"
                            ;; conforms to generic search-return-opt
                            ;; syntax defined in [IMAPABNF]
       resp-text-code     =/ "NOTSAVED"
                            ;; <resp-text-code> from [IMAP4]

Melnikov Standards Track [Page 10] RFC 5182 Last SEARCH Result Reference March 2008

4. Security Considerations

 This extension requires the server to keep additional state, that may
 be used to simplify Denial of Service attacks.  In order to minimize
 damage from such attacks, server implementations MAY limit the number
 of saved searches they allow across all connections at any given time
 and return the tagged NO response containing the NOTSAVED response
 code (see Section 2.5) to a SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) command when this
 limit is exceeded.
 Apart from that, it is believed that this extension doesn't raise any
 additional security concerns not already discussed in [IMAP4].

5. IANA Considerations

 This document defines the "SEARCHRES" IMAP capability.  IANA has
 added it to the IMAP4 Capabilities Registry, which is currently
 located at:
 http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-capabilities

6. Acknowledgments

 The author would like to thank Mark Crispin, Cyrus Daboo, and Curtis
 King for remembering that this document had to be written, as well as
 for comments and corrections received.
 The author would also like to thank Dave Cridland, Mark Crispin,
 Chris Newman, Dan Karp, and Spencer Dawkins for comments and
 corrections received.
 Valuable comments, both in agreement and in dissent, were received
 from Arnt Gulbrandsen.

Melnikov Standards Track [Page 11] RFC 5182 Last SEARCH Result Reference March 2008

7. References

7.1. Normative References

 [KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [ABNF]     Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
            Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January
            2008.
 [IMAP4]    Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
            4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
 [IMAPABNF] Melnikov, A. and C. Daboo, "Collected Extensions to IMAP4
            ABNF", RFC 4466, April 2006.
 [ESEARCH]  Melnikov, A. and D. Cridland, "IMAP4 Extension to SEARCH
            Command for Controlling What Kind of Information Is
            Returned", RFC 4731, November 2006.

7.2. Informative References

 [UIDPLUS]  Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) -
            UIDPLUS extension", RFC 4315, December 2005.
 [SORT]     Crispin, M. and  K. Murchison, "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS
            PROTOCOL - SORT AND THREAD EXTENSIONS", Work in Progress,
            Septemeber 2007.

Author's Address

 Alexey Melnikov
 Isode Ltd.
 5 Castle Business Village,
 36 Station Road,
 Hampton, Middlesex,
 TW12 2BX, United Kingdom
 EMail: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com

Melnikov Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 5182 Last SEARCH Result Reference March 2008

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
 retain all their rights.
 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
 made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
 this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
 ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Melnikov Standards Track [Page 13]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc5182.txt · Last modified: 2008/03/17 17:01 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki