Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Leiba
Request for Comments: 6237 Huawei Technologies
Updates: 4466 A. Melnikov
Category: Experimental Isode Limited
ISSN: 2070-1721 May 2011
IMAP4 Multimailbox SEARCH Extension
Abstract
The IMAP4 specification allows the searching of only the selected
mailbox. A user often wants to search multiple mailboxes, and a
client that wishes to support this must issue a series of SELECT and
SEARCH commands, waiting for each to complete before moving on to the
next. This extension allows a client to search multiple mailboxes
with one command, limiting the round trips and waiting for various
searches to complete, and not requiring disruption of the currently
selected mailbox. This extension also uses MAILBOX and TAG fields in
ESEARCH responses, allowing a client to pipeline the searches if it
chooses. This document updates RFC 4466.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for examination, experimental implementation, and
evaluation.
This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
community. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF
community. It has received public review and has been approved for
publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not
all documents approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of
Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6237.
Leiba & Melnikov Experimental [Page 1]
RFC 6237 IMAP4 Multimailbox SEARCH Extension May 2011
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................3
2. New ESEARCH Command .............................................3
2.1. The ESEARCH Response .......................................4
2.2. Source Options: Specifying Mailboxes to Search .............5
3. Examples ........................................................6
4. Formal Syntax ...................................................7
5. Security Considerations .........................................8
6. IANA Considerations .............................................9
7. Acknowledgements ................................................9
8. Normative References ............................................9
1. Introduction
The IMAP4 specification allows the searching of only the selected
mailbox. A user often wants to search multiple mailboxes, and a
client that wishes to support this must issue a series of SELECT and
SEARCH commands, waiting for each to complete before moving on to the
next. The commands can't be pipelined, because the server might run
them in parallel, and the untagged SEARCH responses could not then be
distinguished from each other.
This extension allows a client to search multiple mailboxes with one
command, and includes MAILBOX and TAG fields in the ESEARCH response,
yielding the following advantages:
o A single command limits the number of round trips needed to search
a set of mailboxes.
o A single command eliminates the need to wait for one search to
complete before starting the next.
Leiba & Melnikov Experimental [Page 2]
RFC 6237 IMAP4 Multimailbox SEARCH Extension May 2011
o A single command allows the server to optimize the search, if it
can.
o A command that is not dependent upon the selected mailbox
eliminates the need to disrupt the selection state or to open
another IMAP connection.
o The MAILBOX, UIDVALIDITY, and TAG fields in the responses allow a
client to distinguish which responses go with which search (and
which mailbox). A client can safely pipeline these search
commands without danger of confusion. The addition of the MAILBOX
and UIDVALIDITY fields updates the search-correlator item defined
in [RFC4466].
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. New ESEARCH Command
Arguments: OPTIONAL source options
OPTIONAL result options
OPTIONAL charset specification (see [RFC2978])
searching criteria (one or more)
Responses: REQUIRED untagged response: ESEARCH
Result: OK -- search completed
NO -- error: cannot search that charset or criteria
BAD -- command unknown or arguments invalid
This section defines a new ESEARCH command, which works similarly to
the UID SEARCH command described in Section 2.6.1 of [RFC4466]
(initially described in Section 6.4.4 of [RFC3501] and extended by
[RFC4731]).
The ESEARCH command further extends searching by allowing for
optional source and result options. This document does not define
any new result options (see Section 3.1 of [RFC4731]). A server that
supports this extension includes "MULTISEARCH" in its IMAP capability
string.
Leiba & Melnikov Experimental [Page 3]
RFC 6237 IMAP4 Multimailbox SEARCH Extension May 2011
Because there has been confusion about this, it is worth pointing out
that with ESEARCH, as with *any* SEARCH or UID SEARCH command, it
MUST NOT be considered an error if the search terms include a range
of message numbers that extends (or, in fact, starts) beyond the end
of the mailbox. For example, a client might want to establish a
rolling window through the search results this way:
C: tag1 UID ESEARCH FROM "frobozz" 1:100
...followed later by this:
C: tag1 UID ESEARCH FROM "frobozz" 101:200
...and so on. This tells the server to match only the first hundred
messages in the mailbox the first time, the second hundred the second
time, etc. In fact, it might likely allow the server to optimize the
search significantly. In the above example, whether the mailbox
contains 50 or 150 or 250 messages, neither of the search commands
shown will result in an error. It is up to the client to know when
to stop moving its search window.
2.1. The ESEARCH Response
In response to an ESEARCH command, the server MUST return ESEARCH
responses [RFC4731] (that is, not SEARCH responses). Because message
numbers are not useful for mailboxes that are not selected, the
responses MUST contain information about UIDs, not message numbers.
This is true even if the source options specify that only the
selected mailbox be searched.
Presence of a source option in the absence of a result option implies
the "ALL" result option (see Section 3.1 of [RFC4731]). Note that
this is not the same as the result from the SEARCH command described
in the IMAP base protocol [RFC3501].
Source options describe which mailboxes must be searched for
messages. An ESEARCH command with source options does not affect
which mailbox, if any, is currently selected, regardless of which
mailboxes are searched.
For each mailbox satisfying the source options, a single ESEARCH
response MUST be returned if any messages in that mailbox match the
search criteria. An ESEARCH response MUST NOT be returned for
mailboxes that contain no matching messages. This is true even when
result options such as MIN, MAX, and COUNT are specified (see
Section 3.1 of [RFC4731]), and the values returned (lowest UID
matched, highest UID matched, and number of messages matched,
respectively) apply to the mailbox reported in that ESEARCH response.
Leiba & Melnikov Experimental [Page 4]
RFC 6237 IMAP4 Multimailbox SEARCH Extension May 2011
Note that it is possible for an ESEARCH command to return *no*
untagged responses (no ESEARCH responses at all), in the case that
there are no matches to the search in any of the mailboxes that
satisfy the source options. Clients can detect this situation by
finding the tagged OK response without having received any matching
untagged ESEARCH responses.
Each ESEARCH response MUST contain the MAILBOX, TAG, and UIDVALIDITY
correlators. Correlators allow clients to issue several ESEARCH
commands at once (pipelined). If the SEARCHRES [RFC5182] extension
is used in an ESEARCH command, that ESEARCH command MUST be executed
by the server after all previous SEARCH/ESEARCH commands have
completed and before any subsequent SEARCH/ESEARCH commands are
executed. The server MAY perform consecutive ESEARCH commands in
parallel as long as none of them use the SEARCHRES extension.
2.2. Source Options: Specifying Mailboxes to Search
The source options, if present, MUST contain a mailbox specifier as
defined in the IMAP NOTIFY extension [RFC5465], Section 6 (using the
"filter-mailboxes" ABNF item), with the following differences:
1. The "selected-delayed" specifier is not valid here.
2. A "subtree-one" specifier is added. The "subtree" specifier
results in a search of the specified mailbox and all selectable
mailboxes that are subordinate to it, through an indefinitely
deep hierarchy. The "subtree-one" specifier results in a search
of the specified mailbox and all selectable child mailboxes, one
hierarchy level down.
If "subtree" is specified, the server MUST defend against loops in
the hierarchy (for example, those caused by recursive file-system
links within the message store). The server SHOULD do this by
keeping track of the mailboxes that have been searched, and
terminating the hierarchy traversal when a repeat is found. If it
cannot do that, it MAY do it by limiting the hierarchy depth.
If the source options are not present, the value "selected" is
assumed -- that is, only the currently selected mailbox is searched.
The "personal" source option is a particularly convenient way to
search all of the current user's mailboxes. Note that there is no
way to use wildcard characters to search all mailboxes; the
"mailboxes" source option does not do wildcard expansion.
Leiba & Melnikov Experimental [Page 5]
RFC 6237 IMAP4 Multimailbox SEARCH Extension May 2011
If the source options include (or default to) "selected", the IMAP
session MUST be in "selected" state. If the source options specify
other mailboxes and NOT "selected", then the IMAP session MUST be in
either "selected" or "authenticated" state. If the session is not in
a correct state, the ESEARCH command MUST return a "BAD" result.
If the server supports the SEARCHRES [RFC5182] extension, then the
"SAVE" result option is valid *only* if "selected" is specified or
defaulted as the sole mailbox to be searched. If any source option
other than "selected" is specified, the ESEARCH command MUST return a
"BAD" result.
If the server supports the CONTEXT=SEARCH and/or CONTEXT=SORT
extension [RFC5267], then the following additional rules apply:
o The CONTEXT return option (Section 4.2 of [RFC5267]) can be used
with an ESEARCH command.
o If the UPDATE return option is used (Section 4.3 of [RFC5267]), it
MUST apply ONLY to the currently selected mailbox. If UPDATE is
used and there is no mailbox currently selected, the ESEARCH
command MUST return a "BAD" result.
o The PARTIAL search return option (Section 4.4 of [RFC5267]) can be
used and applies to each mailbox searched by the ESEARCH command.
If the server supports the Access Control List (ACL) [RFC4314]
extension, then the logged-in user is required to have the "r" right
for each mailbox she wants to search. In addition, any mailboxes
that are not explicitly named (accessed through "personal" or
"subtree", for example) are required to have the "l" right.
Mailboxes matching the source options for which the logged-in user
lacks sufficient rights MUST be ignored by the ESEARCH command
processing. In particular, ESEARCH responses MUST NOT be returned
for those mailboxes.
3. Examples
In the following example, note that two ESEARCH commands are
pipelined, and that the server is running them in parallel,
interleaving a response to the second search amid the responses to
the first (watch the tags).
C: tag1 ESEARCH IN (mailboxes "folder1" subtree "folder2") unseen
C: tag2 ESEARCH IN (mailboxes "folder1" subtree-one "folder2")
subject "chad"
S: * ESEARCH (TAG "tag1" MAILBOX "folder1" UIDVALIDITY 1) UID ALL
4001,4003,4005,4007,4009
Leiba & Melnikov Experimental [Page 6]
RFC 6237 IMAP4 Multimailbox SEARCH Extension May 2011
S: * ESEARCH (TAG "tag2" MAILBOX "folder1" UIDVALIDITY 1) UID ALL
3001:3004,3788
S: * ESEARCH (TAG "tag1" MAILBOX "folder2/banana" UIDVALIDITY 503)
UID ALL 3002,4004
S: * ESEARCH (TAG "tag1" MAILBOX "folder2/peach" UIDVALIDITY 3) UID
ALL 921691
S: tag1 OK done
S: * ESEARCH (TAG "tag2" MAILBOX "folder2/salmon" UIDVALIDITY
1111111) UID ALL 50003,50006,50009,50012
S: tag2 OK done
4. Formal Syntax
The following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur
Form (ABNF) as described in [RFC5234]. Terms not defined here are
taken from [RFC3501], [RFC5465], or [RFC4466].
command-auth =/ esearch
; Update definition from IMAP base [RFC3501].
; Add new "esearch" command.
command-select =/ esearch
; Update definition from IMAP base [RFC3501].
; Add new "esearch" command.
filter-mailboxes-other =/ ("subtree-one" SP one-or-more-mailbox)
; Update definition from IMAP Notify [RFC5465].
; Add new "subtree-one" selector.
filter-mailboxes-selected = "selected"
; Update definition from IMAP Notify [RFC5465].
; We forbid the use of "selected-delayed".
one-correlator = ("TAG" SP tag-string) / ("MAILBOX" SP astring) /
("UIDVALIDITY" SP nz-number)
; Each correlator MUST appear exactly once.
scope-option = scope-option-name [SP scope-option-value]
; No options defined here. Syntax for future extensions.
scope-option-name = tagged-ext-label
; No options defined here. Syntax for future extensions.
scope-option-value = tagged-ext-val
; No options defined here. Syntax for future extensions.
Leiba & Melnikov Experimental [Page 7]
RFC 6237 IMAP4 Multimailbox SEARCH Extension May 2011
scope-options = scope-option *(SP scope-option)
; A given option may only appear once.
; No options defined here. Syntax for future extensions.
esearch = "ESEARCH" [SP esearch-source-opts]
[SP search-return-opts] SP search-program
search-correlator = SP "(" one-correlator *(SP one-correlator) ")"
; Updates definition in IMAP4 ABNF [RFC4466].
esearch-source-opts = "IN" SP "(" source-mbox [SP
"(" scope-options ")"] ")"
source-mbox = filter-mailboxes *(SP filter-mailboxes)
; "filter-mailboxes" is defined in IMAP Notify [RFC5465].
; See updated definition of filter-mailboxes-other, above.
; See updated definition of filter-mailboxes-selected, above.
5. Security Considerations
This new IMAP ESEARCH command allows a single command to search many
mailboxes at once. On the one hand, a client could do that by
sending many IMAP SEARCH commands. On the other hand, this makes it
easier for a client to overwork a server, by sending a single command
that results in an expensive search of tens of thousands of
mailboxes. Server implementations need to be aware of that, and
provide mechanisms that prevent a client from adversely affecting
other users. Limitations on the number of mailboxes that may be
searched in one command, and/or on the server resources that will be
devoted to responding to a single client, are reasonable limitations
for an implementation to impose.
Implementations MUST, of course, apply access controls appropriately,
limiting a user's access to ESEARCH in the same way its access is
limited for any other IMAP commands. This extension has no data-
access risks beyond what may be there in the unextended IMAP
implementation.
Mailboxes matching the source options for which the logged-in user
lacks sufficient rights MUST be ignored by the ESEARCH command
processing (see the paragraph about this in Section 2.2). In
particular, any attempt to distinguish insufficient access from
non-existent mailboxes may expose information about the mailbox
hierarchy that isn't otherwise available to the client.
If "subtree" is specified, the server MUST defend against loops in
the hierarchy (see the paragraph about this in Section 2.2).
Leiba & Melnikov Experimental [Page 8]
RFC 6237 IMAP4 Multimailbox SEARCH Extension May 2011
6. IANA Considerations
IMAP4 capabilities are registered by publishing a Standards Track or
IESG-approved Experimental RFC. The "IMAP 4 Capabilities" registry
is currently located here:
http://www.iana.org/
This document defines the IMAP capability "MULTISEARCH", and IANA has
added it to the registry.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge feedback provided by Timo
Sirainen, Peter Coates, and Arnt Gulbrandsen.
8. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2978] Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration
Procedures", BCP 19, RFC 2978, October 2000.
[RFC3501] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
[RFC4314] Melnikov, A., "IMAP4 Access Control List (ACL) Extension",
RFC 4314, December 2005.
[RFC4466] Melnikov, A. and C. Daboo, "Collected Extensions to IMAP4
ABNF", RFC 4466, April 2006.
[RFC4731] Melnikov, A. and D. Cridland, "IMAP4 Extension to SEARCH
Command for Controlling What Kind of Information Is
Returned", RFC 4731, November 2006.
[RFC5182] Melnikov, A., "IMAP Extension for Referencing the Last
SEARCH Result", RFC 5182, March 2008.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed., and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
January 2008.
[RFC5267] Cridland, D. and C. King, "Contexts for IMAP4", RFC 5267,
July 2008.
Leiba & Melnikov Experimental [Page 9]
RFC 6237 IMAP4 Multimailbox SEARCH Extension May 2011
[RFC5465] Gulbrandsen, A., King, C., and A. Melnikov, "The IMAP
NOTIFY Extension", RFC 5465, February 2009.
Authors' Addresses
Barry Leiba
Huawei Technologies
Phone: +1 646 827 0648
EMail: barryleiba@computer.org
URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
Alexey Melnikov
Isode Limited
5 Castle Business Village
36 Station Road
Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2BX
UK
EMail: Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com
URI: http://www.melnikov.ca/
Leiba & Melnikov Experimental [Page 10]
RFC, FYI, BCP