imapsync/Mail-IMAPClient-2.2.9/docs/draft-ietf-imapext-thread-11.txt
Nick Bebout 9ca0e338a4 1.284
2011-03-12 02:44:47 +00:00

788 lines
27 KiB
Text

IMAP Extensions Working Group M. Crispin
Internet Draft: IMAP THREAD K. Murchison
Document: internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imapext-thread-11.txt June 2002
INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - THREAD EXTENSION
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
A revised version of this draft document will be submitted to the RFC
editor as a Proposed Standard for the Internet Community. Discussion
and suggestions for improvement are requested, and should be sent to
ietf-imapext@IMC.ORG. This document will expire before 22 December
2002. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document describes the server-based threading extension to the
IMAP4rev1 protocol. This extension provides substantial performance
improvements for IMAP clients which offer threaded views.
A server which supports this extension indicates this with one or
more capability names consisting of "THREAD=" followed by a supported
threading algorithm name as described in this document. This
provides for future upwards-compatible extensions.
Crispin and Murchison [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT IMAP THREAD EXPIRES 22 December 2002
Base Subject Text
Threading uses the "base subject," which has specific subject
artifacts of deployed Internet mail software removed. Due to the
complexity of these artifacts, the formal syntax for the subject
extraction rules is ambiguous. The following procedure is followed
to determine the actual "base subject" which is used to thread:
(1) Convert any RFC 2047 encoded-words in the subject to
UTF-8. Convert all tabs and continuations to space.
Convert all multiple spaces to a single space.
(2) Remove all trailing text of the subject that matches
the subj-trailer ABNF, repeat until no more matches are
possible.
(3) Remove all prefix text of the subject that matches the
subj-leader ABNF.
(4) If there is prefix text of the subject that matches the
subj-blob ABNF, and removing that prefix leaves a non-empty
subj-base, then remove the prefix text.
(5) Repeat (3) and (4) until no matches remain.
Note: it is possible to defer step (2) until step (6),
but this requires checking for subj-trailer in step (4).
(6) If the resulting text begins with the subj-fwd-hdr ABNF
and ends with the subj-fwd-trl ABNF, remove the
subj-fwd-hdr and subj-fwd-trl and repeat from step (2).
(7) The resulting text is the "base subject" used in
threading.
All servers and disconnected clients MUST use exactly this algorithm
when threading. Otherwise there is potential for a user to get
inconsistent results based on whether they are running in connected
or disconnected IMAP mode.
Sent Date
As used in this document, the term "sent date" refers to the date and
time from the Date: header, adjusted by time zone. This differs from
date-related criteria in SEARCH, which use just the date and not the
time, nor adjusts by time zone.
Crispin and Murchison [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT IMAP THREAD EXPIRES 22 December 2002
Additional Commands
This command is an extension to the IMAP4rev1 base protocol.
The section header is intended to correspond with where it would be
located in the main document if it was part of the base
specification.
6.3.THREAD. THREAD Command
Arguments: threading algorithm
charset specification
searching criteria (one or more)
Data: untagged responses: THREAD
Result: OK - thread completed
NO - thread error: can't thread that charset or
criteria
BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The THREAD command is a variant of SEARCH with threading semantics
for the results. Thread has two arguments before the searching
criteria argument; a threading algorithm, and the searching
charset. Note that unlike SEARCH, the searching charset argument
is mandatory.
There is also a UID THREAD command which corresponds to THREAD the
way that UID SEARCH corresponds to SEARCH.
The THREAD command first searches the mailbox for messages that
match the given searching criteria using the charset argument for
the interpretation of strings in the searching criteria. It then
returns the matching messages in an untagged THREAD response,
threaded according to the specified threading algorithm.
Sorting is in ascending order. Earlier dates sort before later
dates; smaller sizes sort before larger sizes; and strings are
sorted according to ascending values established by their
collation algorithm (see under "Internationalization
Considerations").
Crispin and Murchison [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT IMAP THREAD EXPIRES 22 December 2002
The defined threading algorithms are as follows:
ORDEREDSUBJECT
The ORDEREDSUBJECT threading algorithm is also referred to as
"poor man's threading." The searched messages are sorted by
base subject and then by the sent date. The messages are then
split into separate threads, with each thread containing
messages with the same base subject text. Finally, the threads
are sorted by the sent date of the first message in the thread.
Note that each message in a thread is a child (as opposed to a
sibling) of the previous message.
REFERENCES
The REFERENCES threading algorithm is based on the algorithm
written by Jamie Zawinski which was used in "Netscape Mail and
News" versions 2.0 through 3.0. For details, see
http://www.jwz.org/doc/threading.html.
This algorithm threads the searched messages by grouping them
together in parent/child relationships based on which messages
are replies to others. The parent/child relationships are
built using two methods: reconstructing a message's ancestry
using the references contained within it; and checking the
original (not base) subject of a message to see if it is a
reply to (or forward of) another message.
Note: "Message ID" in the following description refers to a
normalized form of the msg-id in [RFC 2822]. The actual
text in an RFC 2822 may use quoting, resulting in multiple
ways of expressing the same Message ID. Implementations of
the REFERENCES threading algorithm MUST normalize any msg-id
in order to avoid false non-matches due to differences in
quoting.
For example, the msg-id
<"01KF8JCEOCBS0045PS"@xxx.yyy.com>
and the msg-id
<01KF8JCEOCBS0045PS@xxx.yyy.com>
MUST be interpreted as being the same Message ID.
The references used for reconstructing a message's ancestry are
found using the following rules:
If a message contains a [NEWS]-style References header line,
then use the Message IDs in the References header line as
the references.
Crispin and Murchison [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT IMAP THREAD EXPIRES 22 December 2002
If a message does not contain a References header line, or
the References header line does not contain any valid
Message IDs, then use the first (if any) valid Message ID
found in the In-Reply-To header line as the only reference
(parent) for this message.
Note: Although [RFC 2822] permits multiple Message IDs in
the In-Reply-To header, in actual practice this
discipline has not been followed. For example,
In-Reply-To headers have been observed with email
addresses after the Message ID, and there are no good
heuristics for software to determine the difference.
This is not a problem with the References header however.
If a message does not contain an In-Reply-To header line, or
the In-Reply-To header line does not contain a valid Message
ID, then the message does not have any references (NIL).
A message is considered to be a reply or forward if the base
subject extraction rules, applied to the original subject,
remove any of the following: a subj-refwd, a "(fwd)"
subj-trailer, or a subj-fwd-hdr and subj-fwd-trl.
The REFERENCES algorithm is significantly more complex than
ORDEREDSUBJECT and consists of six main steps. These steps are
outlined in detail below.
(1) For each searched message:
(A) Using the Message IDs in the message's references, link
the corresponding messages (those whose Message-ID header
line contains the given reference Message ID) together as
parent/child. Make the first reference the parent of the
second (and the second a child of the first), the second the
parent of the third (and the third a child of the second),
etc. The following rules govern the creation of these
links:
If a message does not contain a Message-ID header line,
or the Message-ID header line does not contain a valid
Message ID, then assign a unique Message ID to this
message.
If two or more messages have the same Message ID, assign
a unique Message ID to each of the duplicates.
If no message can be found with a given Message ID,
create a dummy message with this ID. Use this dummy
Crispin and Murchison [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT IMAP THREAD EXPIRES 22 December 2002
message for all subsequent references to this ID.
If a message already has a parent, don't change the
existing link. This is done because the References
header line may have been truncated by a MUA. As a
result, there is no guarantee that the messages
corresponding to adjacent Message IDs in the References
header line are parent and child.
Do not create a parent/child link if creating that link
would introduce a loop. For example, before making
message A the parent of B, make sure that A is not a
descendent of B.
Note: Message ID comparisons are case-sensitive.
(B) Create a parent/child link between the last reference
(or NIL if there are no references) and the current message.
If the current message already has a parent, it is probably
the result of a truncated References header line, so break
the current parent/child link before creating the new
correct one. As in step 1.A, do not create the parent/child
link if creating that link would introduce a loop. Note
that if this message has no references, that it will now
have no parent.
Note: The parent/child links created in steps 1.A and 1.B
MUST be kept consistent with one another at ALL times.
(2) Gather together all of the messages that have no parents
and make them all children (siblings of one another) of a dummy
parent (the "root"). These messages constitute the first
(head) message of the threads created thus far.
(3) Prune dummy messages from the thread tree. Traverse each
thread under the root, and for each message:
If it is a dummy message with NO children, delete it.
If it is a dummy message with children, delete it, but
promote its children to the current level. In other words,
splice them in with the dummy's siblings.
Do not promote the children if doing so would make them
children of the root, unless there is only one child.
(4) Sort the messages under the root (top-level siblings only)
by sent date. In the case of an exact match on sent date or if
Crispin and Murchison [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT IMAP THREAD EXPIRES 22 December 2002
either of the Date: headers used in a comparison can not be
parsed, use the order in which the messages appear in the
mailbox (that is, by sequence number) to determine the order.
In the case of a dummy message, sort its children by sent date
and then use the first child for the top-level sort.
(5) Gather together messages under the root that have the same
base subject text.
(A) Create a table for associating base subjects with
messages, called the subject table.
(B) Populate the subject table with one message per each
base subject. For each child of the root:
(i) Find the subject of this thread, by using the base
subject from either the current message or its first
child if the current message is a dummy. This is the
thread subject.
(ii) If the thread subject is empty, skip this message.
(iii) Look up the message associated with the thread
subject in the subject table.
(iv) If there is no message in the subject table with the
thread subject, add the current message and the thread
subject to the subject table.
Otherwise, if the message in the subject table is not a
dummy, AND either of the following criteria are true:
The current message is a dummy, OR
The message in the subject table is a reply or forward
and the current message is not.
then replace the message in the subject table with the
current message.
(C) Merge threads with the same thread subject. For each
child of the root:
(i) Find the message's thread subject as in step 5.B.i
above.
(ii) If the thread subject is empty, skip this message.
Crispin and Murchison [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT IMAP THREAD EXPIRES 22 December 2002
(iii) Lookup the message associated with this thread
subject in the subject table.
(iv) If the message in the subject table is the current
message, skip this message.
Otherwise, merge the current message with the one in the
subject table using the following rules:
If both messages are dummies, append the current
message's children to the children of the message in
the subject table (the children of both messages
become siblings), and then delete the current message.
If the message in the subject table is a dummy and the
current message is not, make the current message a
child of the message in the subject table (a sibling
of its children).
If the current message is a reply or forward and the
message in the subject table is not, make the current
message a child of the message in the subject table (a
sibling of its children).
Otherwise, create a new dummy message and make both
the current message and the message in the subject
table children of the dummy. Then replace the message
in the subject table with the dummy message.
Note: Subject comparisons are case-insensitive, as
described under "Internationalization
Considerations."
(6) Traverse the messages under the root and sort each set of
siblings by sent date. Traverse the messages in such a way
that the "youngest" set of siblings are sorted first, and the
"oldest" set of siblings are sorted last (grandchildren are
sorted before children, etc). In the case of an exact match on
sent date or if either of the Date: headers used in a
comparison can not be parsed, use the order in which the
messages appear in the mailbox (that is, by sequence number) to
determine the order. In the case of a dummy message (which can
only occur with top-level siblings), use its first child for
sorting.
Crispin and Murchison [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT IMAP THREAD EXPIRES 22 December 2002
Example: C: A283 THREAD ORDEREDSUBJECT UTF-8 SINCE 5-MAR-2000
S: * THREAD (166)(167)(168)(169)(172)(170)(171)
(173)(174 175 176 178 181 180)(179)(177 183
182 188 184 185 186 187 189)(190)(191)(192)
(193)(194 195)(196 197 198)(199)(200 202)(201)
(203)(204)(205)(206 207)(208)
S: A283 OK THREAD completed
C: A284 THREAD ORDEREDSUBJECT US-ASCII TEXT "gewp"
S: * THREAD
S: A284 OK THREAD completed
C: A285 THREAD REFERENCES UTF-8 SINCE 5-MAR-2000
S: * THREAD (166)(167)(168)(169)(172)((170)(179))
(171)(173)((174)(175)(176)(178)(181)(180))
((177)(183)(182)(188 (184)(189))(185 186)(187))
(190)(191)(192)(193)((194)(195 196))(197 198)
(199)(200 202)(201)(203)(204)(205 206 207)(208)
S: A285 OK THREAD completed
Note: The line breaks in the first and third client
responses are for editorial clarity and do not appear in
real THREAD responses.
Crispin and Murchison [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT IMAP THREAD EXPIRES 22 December 2002
Additional Responses
This response is an extension to the IMAP4rev1 base protocol.
The section heading of this response is intended to correspond with
where it would be located in the main document.
7.2.THREAD. THREAD Response
Data: zero or more threads
The THREAD response occurs as a result of a THREAD or UID THREAD
command. It contains zero or more threads. A thread consists of
a parenthesized list of thread members.
Thread members consist of zero or more message numbers, delimited
by spaces, indicating successive parent and child. This continues
until the thread splits into multiple sub-threads, at which point
the thread nests into multiple sub-threads with the first member
of each subthread being siblings at this level. There is no limit
to the nesting of threads.
The messages numbers refer to those messages that match the search
criteria. For THREAD, these are message sequence numbers; for UID
THREAD, these are unique identifiers.
Example: S: * THREAD (2)(3 6 (4 23)(44 7 96))
The first thread consists only of message 2. The second thread
consists of the messages 3 (parent) and 6 (child), after which it
splits into two subthreads; the first of which contains messages 4
(child of 6, sibling of 44) and 23 (child of 4), and the second of
which contains messages 44 (child of 6, sibling of 4), 7 (child of
44), and 96 (child of 7). Since some later messages are parents
of earlier messages, the messages were probably moved from some
other mailbox at different times.
-- 2
-- 3
\-- 6
|-- 4
| \-- 23
|
\-- 44
\-- 7
\-- 96
Crispin and Murchison [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT IMAP THREAD EXPIRES 22 December 2002
Example: S: * THREAD ((3)(5))
In this example, 3 and 5 are siblings of a parent which does not
match the search criteria (and/or does not exist in the mailbox);
however they are members of the same thread.
Crispin and Murchison [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT IMAP THREAD EXPIRES 22 December 2002
Formal Syntax of THREAD commands and Responses
thread-data = "THREAD" [SP 1*thread-list]
thread-list = "(" thread-members / thread-nested ")"
thread-members = nz-number *(SP nz-number) [SP thread-nested]
thread-nested = 2*thread-list
thread = ["UID" SP] "THREAD" SP thread-algorithm
SP search-charset 1*(SP search-key)
thread-algorithm = "ORDEREDSUBJECT" / "REFERENCES" / atom
The following syntax describes base subject extraction rules (2)-(6):
subject = *subj-leader [subj-middle] *subj-trailer
subj-refwd = ("re" / ("fw" ["d"])) *WSP [subj-blob] ":"
subj-blob = "[" *BLOBCHAR "]" *WSP
subj-fwd = subj-fwd-hdr subject subj-fwd-trl
subj-fwd-hdr = "[fwd:"
subj-fwd-trl = "]"
subj-leader = (*subj-blob subj-refwd) / WSP
subj-middle = *subj-blob (subj-base / subj-fwd)
; last subj-blob is subj-base if subj-base would
; otherwise be empty
subj-trailer = "(fwd)" / WSP
subj-base = NONWSP *([*WSP] NONWSP)
; can be a subj-blob
BLOBCHAR = %x01-5a / %x5c / %x5e-7f
; any CHAR except '[' and ']'
NONWSP = %x01-08 / %x0a-1f / %x21-7f
; any CHAR other than WSP
Crispin and Murchison [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT IMAP THREAD EXPIRES 22 December 2002
Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
Internationalization Considerations
By default, strings are threaded according to the "minimum sorting
collation algorithm". All implementations of THREAD MUST implement
the minimum sorting collation algorithm.
In the minimum sorting collation algorithm, the Basic Latin
alphabetics (U+0041 to U+005A uppercase, U+0061 to U+007A lowercase)
are sorted in a case-insensitive fashion; that is, "A" (U+0041) and
"a" (U+0061) are treated as exact equals. The characters U+005B to
U+0060 are sorted after the Basic Latin alphabetics; for example,
U+005E is sorted after U+005A and U+007A. All other characters are
sorted according to their octet values, as expressed in UTF-8. No
attempt is made to treat composed characters specially, or to do
case-insensitive comparisons of composed characters.
Note: this means, among other things, that the composed
characters in the Latin-1 Supplement are not compared in
what would be considered an ISO 8859-1 "case-insensitive"
fashion. Case comparison rules for characters with
diacriticals differ between languages; the minimum sorting
collation does not attempt to deal with this at all. This
is reserved for other sorting collations, which may be
language-specific.
;;; *** ITEM FOR DISCUSSION ***
;;; THERE IS SOME CONCERN THAT THIS MINIMUM COLLATION IS TOO MINIMAL,
;;; AND THAT THE "GENERIC UNICODE SORTING COLLATION" DISCUSSED BELOW
;;; NEEDS TO BE THE MINIMUM. ONE SUGGESTION IS UNICODE TECHNICAL
;;; STANDARD 10 (TR-10). IF THIS IS THE MINIMUM, THAT REQUIRES THAT
;;; ALL IMPLEMENTATIONS OF SORT AND THREAD BE UNICODE-SAVVY AT LEAST
;;; TO THE POINT OF IMPLEMENTATION TR-10. IS THIS REALISTIC? DOES
;;; THIS RAISE EXCESSIVE IMPLEMENTATION BARRIERS?
Other sorting collations, and the ability to change the sorting
collation, will be defined in a separate document dealing with IMAP
internationalization.
It is anticipated that there will be a generic Unicode sorting
collation, which will provide generic case-insensitivity for
alphabetic scripts, specification of composed character handling, and
language-specific sorting collations. A server which implements
non-default sorting collations will modify its sorting behavior
according to the selected sorting collation.
Crispin and Murchison [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT IMAP THREAD EXPIRES 22 December 2002
Non-English translations of "Re" or "Fw"/"Fwd" are not specified for
removal in the base subject extraction process. By specifying that
only the English forms of the prefixes are used, it becomes a simple
display time task to localize the prefix language for the user. If,
on the other hand, prefixes in multiple languages are permitted, the
result is a geometrically complex, and ultimately unimplementable,
task. In order to improve the ability to support non-English display
in Internet mail clients, only the English form of these prefixes
should be transmitted in Internet mail messages.
A. References
[ABNF] Crocker, D., and Overell, P. "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 2234, November 1997.
[NEWS] Horton, M., and Adams, R., "Standard for interchange of USENET
messages", RFC-1036, AT&T Bell Laboratories and Center for Seismic
Studies, December, 1987.
[RFC-2822] Resnick, P. "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822, April
2001.
Author's Address
Mark R. Crispin
Networks and Distributed Computing
University of Washington
4545 15th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98105-4527
Phone: (206) 543-5762
EMail: MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU
Kenneth Murchison
Oceana Matrix Ltd.
21 Princeton Place
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Phone: (716) 662-8973 x26
EMail: ken@oceana.com
Crispin and Murchison [Page 14]