Internet Message Access Protocol Extension (imapext)

Simon Josefsson | 7 Oct 2001 13:57

IMAP, UseNet and UTF-8 Newsgroups names


In USEFOR it seems as if Newsgroups: names are to be UTF-8 in the
future.  With a little tweaking, this works fine (over NNTP) in the
client I use, but I wonder how it will integrate with IMAP.

First, is it the intention that reading UseNet via IMAP is officially
supported?  It is mentioned in the draft (#news) but everything is
very RFC 822 centric.  (Which btw should probably be updated to 2822.)

Is the UseNet-via-IMAP widely used at all?  Maybe noone cares if UTF-8
newsgroups aren't accessible via IMAP?

The immediate problems that comes to mind is unencoded 8-bit
characters in headers. UTF-8 newsgroups breaks this.  Recommending
that Newsgroups: should be RFC 2047 encoded during IMAP transport may
be one solution, but it has some issues (which charset? Always UTF-8
or just any that matches? etc).

headers

Mark Crispin | 7 Oct 2001 14:40

re: IMAP, UseNet and UTF-8 Newsgroups names


On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 13:57:11 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> First, is it the intention that reading UseNet via IMAP is officially
> supported?

Yes.

> It is mentioned in the draft (#news) but everything is
> very RFC 822 centric.  (Which btw should probably be updated to 2822.)

I've just made the update.

> Is the UseNet-via-IMAP widely used at all?

Yes, it's used.

> Maybe noone cares if UTF-8
> newsgroups aren't accessible via IMAP?

People do care.

> The immediate problems that comes to mind is unencoded 8-bit
> characters in headers. UTF-8 newsgroups breaks this.  Recommending
> that Newsgroups: should be RFC 2047 encoded during IMAP transport may
> be one solution, but it has some issues (which charset? Always UTF-8
> or just any that matches? etc).

My intention has always been that "all the 8-bit world is UTF-8", and that
8-bit characters in mailbox names and headers are unambiguously UTF-8.

(Continue reading)

headers

Simon Josefsson | 7 Oct 2001 15:20

Re: IMAP, UseNet and UTF-8 Newsgroups names

Mark Crispin <MRC <at> CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:

>> Is the UseNet-via-IMAP widely used at all?
>
> Yes, it's used.

Ok, good. Maybe a reference to the USEFOR message syntax is
appropriate, since news doesn't use RFC 822.

Out of curiosity, can you post to news via IMAP as well?  Is the
distribution based on the APPEND mailbox name, or what is in the
Newsgroups field?

>> The immediate problems that comes to mind is unencoded 8-bit
>> characters in headers. UTF-8 newsgroups breaks this.  Recommending
>> that Newsgroups: should be RFC 2047 encoded during IMAP transport may
>> be one solution, but it has some issues (which charset? Always UTF-8
>> or just any that matches? etc).
>
> My intention has always been that "all the 8-bit world is UTF-8", and that
> 8-bit characters in mailbox names and headers are unambiguously UTF-8.

I think this should be clarified in the draft, right now the draft
references only RFC 822 (+ MIME) which clearly forbids 8-bit
characters in headers.  UTF-8 is not mentioned except for mailbox
names.  Adding a references for message syntax to USEFOR would solve
this (but would require a careful look through the document to see if
something else needs to be updated as well).

(Continue reading)

headers

Mark Crispin | 10 Oct 2001 07:38

Re: IMAP, UseNet and UTF-8 Newsgroups names

On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 15:20:06 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Ok, good. Maybe a reference to the USEFOR message syntax is
> appropriate, since news doesn't use RFC 822.

I'm one of those people who believe that the notion that news doesn't use RFC
[2]822 is fundamentally wrong-headed, and as I result I don't accept it.  2822
is the message format syntax.  News is a type of message.

I know that it is possible to argue this point forever.  If you disagree with
me, let's agree to disagree and not waste time arguing about it.

> Out of curiosity, can you post to news via IMAP as well?

There is no posting in IMAP.  IMAP clients use SMTP and NNTP for mail and news
posting, respectively.

> > My intention has always been that "all the 8-bit world is UTF-8", and that
> > 8-bit characters in mailbox names and headers are unambiguously UTF-8.
> I think this should be clarified in the draft, right now the draft
> references only RFC 822 (+ MIME) which clearly forbids 8-bit
> characters in headers.

The prohibition is quite intentional; people should not have the idea that
they have license to do this in IMAP.

> RFC822.HEADER, SEARCH HEADER etc all needs to be described as being
> UTF-8.

Someday, RFC822.HEADER may return a UTF-8 string.  But not now; and for the

(Continue reading)

headers

Alexey Melnikov | 10 Oct 2001 08:22

Question about existing implementations of ACL (RFC 2086)


Hi,

[I am trying to collect some implementation feedback before I submit new
revision of ACL draft.]

Anybody implemented groups in IMAP ACL? What naming schemes different
implementations use?
Any special prefix?

Alexey Melnikov
__________________________________________
R & D, ACI Worldwide (formerly MessagingDirect Ltd.)
phone 780.424.4922 x357

I speak for myself only, not for my employer.
__________________________________________

headers

Alexey Melnikov | 10 Oct 2001 08:47

re: More questions about IMAP ACL

On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:47:43 -0600, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> 1). Should the document be fully backward compatible with RFC 2086?

Try, but don't allow that to keep you from doing the right thing when
necessary.

> 2). Should the document extend functionality or just fix RFC 2086?

It should extend functionality.

headers

Lawrence Greenfield | 10 Oct 2001 18:38

Re: Question about existing implementations of ACL (RFC 2086)

   Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:22:38 -0600
   From: Alexey Melnikov <mel <at> messagingdirect.com>
   Organization: ACI WorldWide / MessagingDirect

   [I am trying to collect some implementation feedback before I submit new
   revision of ACL draft.]

   Anybody implemented groups in IMAP ACL? What naming schemes different
   implementations use?

We implement groups with several different authorization modules:

. The one we use on campus is AFS PTS groups, which don't collide with
  our user identifiers.  (All PTS groups have ":" in them, all PTS
  users don't.)

. The Unix /etc/group authorization module prefixes all Unix groups
  with "group:".

. There's a krb authorization module that allows for wildcards (ie,
  "* <at> CS.CMU.EDU" or "leg.* <at> ANDREW.CMU.EDU") which work like groups.

Larry

headers

Alexey Melnikov | 10 Oct 2001 20:01

Re: More questions about IMAP ACL

Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> I have couple generic questions about IMAP ACL:
>
> 1). Should the document be fully backward compatible with RFC 2086? (for
> example, dropping identifiers starting with dash will break
> compatibility).

It just came to me, that adding new rights is not backward compatible
change: some servers don't support storing of arbitrary rights. Also old
servers will use "d" flag for STORE \Deleted, EXPUNGE and DELETE. This will
be a problem for clients. Should we define a new capability name?

> 2). Should the document extend functionality or just fix RFC 2086?

Alexey Melnikov
__________________________________________
R & D, ACI Worldwide (formerly MessagingDirect Ltd.)
phone 780.424.4922 x357

I speak for myself only, not for my employer.
__________________________________________

headers

Mark Crispin | 10 Oct 2001 20:04

Re: More questions about IMAP ACL


On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:01:58 -0600, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Should we define a new capability name?

I say yes.  Let's leave ACL as RFC 2086, and define ACLPLUS.

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

14	May 2013
21	April 2013
27	March 2013
8	February 2013
17	January 2013
10	December 2012
60	November 2012
6	October 2012
48	September 2012
113	August 2012
7	July 2012
16	March 2012
10	February 2012
2	July 2011
1	October 2010
15	July 2010
2	June 2010
2	March 2010
1	November 2009
2	September 2009
3	August 2009
52	July 2009
1	May 2009
5	March 2009
1	February 2009
10	November 2008
19	October 2008
2	August 2008
4	July 2008
30	June 2008
1	May 2008
12	April 2008
96	March 2008
39	February 2008
6	January 2008
30	December 2007
48	November 2007
6	October 2007
25	September 2007
61	August 2007
1	July 2007
15	June 2007
10	May 2007
68	April 2007
42	March 2007
1	February 2007
9	January 2007
9	December 2006
181	November 2006
26	October 2006
72	September 2006
63	August 2006
2	July 2006
7	June 2006
27	May 2006
43	April 2006
87	March 2006
39	February 2006
87	January 2006
69	December 2005
102	November 2005
55	October 2005
54	September 2005
35	August 2005
28	July 2005
87	June 2005
111	May 2005
18	April 2005
68	March 2005
100	February 2005
43	January 2005
18	December 2004
109	November 2004
74	October 2004
34	September 2004
56	August 2004
21	July 2004
28	June 2004
67	May 2004
35	April 2004
3	March 2004
29	January 2004
19	December 2003
31	November 2003
144	October 2003
57	September 2003
150	August 2003
17	July 2003
9	June 2003
40	May 2003
133	April 2003
24	March 2003
42	February 2003
31	January 2003
31	December 2002
36	November 2002
3	October 2002
25	September 2002
7	August 2002
5	July 2002
88	June 2002
22	May 2002
32	April 2002
30	March 2002
17	February 2002
14	January 2002
80	December 2001
19	November 2001
19	October 2001
3	September 2001
23	August 2001
72	July 2001
15	June 2001
9	May 2001
12	April 2001
34	March 2001
55	February 2001
26	January 2001
16	December 2000
63	November 2000
37	October 2000
9	September 2000
84	August 2000
9	July 2000
32	June 2000
21	May 2000
5	April 2000
26	March 2000
21	February 2000
1	January 2000
3	November 1999
26	October 1999
19	September 1999
32	August 1999
28	July 1999
30	June 1999
1	April 1999
7	March 1999
1	January 1999
2	December 1998
5	August 1998
1	May 1998
10	April 1998