This is the second post in my series describing a number of extensions to the POP3 protocol. The main one is a mechanism to refresh an already opened connection to allow newly arrived messages to be downloaded, which I’ve described on a separate post. This one is a lot simpler in scope but if we’re doing work in this protocol anyway, this may as well come as a package.
I am grateful to the authors of POP4 for the original idea.
This post is part of series on POP3. See my project page for more.
To recap, when a client wishes to interact with a mailbox, it first needs to send a UIDL command to retrieve a list of messages in the form of pairs of message-id integers and unique-id strings. (I’ve written before how UIDL really should be considered a required command for both client and server.)
C: UIDL S: +OK Unique-ids follow... S: 1 AAA S: 2 AAB S: 3 AAJ S: .
The numeric message-ids are only valid for the lifetime of this connection while the string unique-ids are persistent between connections. All of the commands (prior to this extension) that deal with messages use the numeric message-ids, requiring the client to store the UIDL response so it has a map from unique-id to message-id.
This extension allows the client to disregard the message-ids entirely, modifying all commands that have a message-id parameter (RETR, TOP, DELE, LIST, UIDL) to use a unique-id parameter instead.
If the server lists UID-PARAM in its CAPA response, the client is permitted to use this alternative form of referencing a message. If a message-id parameter to a command is all numeric, the server will interpret that parameter as a numeric message-id as it always has done. If the parameter instead begins with the four characters “UID:”, the parameter is a reference to a message by its unique-id instead.
C: DELE 1 S: +OK Message #1 (UID:AAA) flagged for deletion. C: DELE UID:AAB S: +OK Message #2 (UID:AAB) flagged for deletion.
(The POP4 proposal used a hyphen to indicate the parameter was a unique-id reference. I decided against adopting this as it could be confused for a negative number, as if numeric message-ids extended into the negative number space. A prefix is a clear indication we’re no longer in realm of numeric identifiers and may allow other prefixes in future.)
If a client has multiple connections to a single mailbox, it would normally need to perform a UIDL command and store the response for each connection separately. If the server supports unique-id parameters, the client is permitted to skip the UIDL command unless it needs a fresh directory listing. Additionally, the client is able to use a multiple connections without having to store the potentially different unique-id/message-id maps for each connection.
RFC 1939 requires that unique-ids are made of “printable” ASCII characters, 33 to 126. As the space (32) is explicitly excluded, there is no ambiguity where a unique-id parameter ends, either with a space (such as with TOP) or at the end of the line.
If a requested unique-id is not present, the server will need to respond with a “-ERR” response. To allow the client to be sure the error is due to a bad unique-id rather than any other error, the error response should inside a [UID] response code. (The CAPA response should also include RESP-CODES.)
S: RETR UID:ABC C: -ERR [UID] No such message with UID:ABC. S: RETR UID:ABD C: -ERR [SYS/PERM] A slightly more fundamental error.
It should be noted that a [UID] error might not necessarily mean the message with this unique-id has been deleted. If a new message has arrived since this particular connection opened, the server may or may not be ready to respond to requests for that message. A client should only make the determination that a message has gone only if it can confirm it with either a new or refreshed connection.
Extensions yet to come
I’ve pondered about if this extension, once its written up in formal RFC language, should modify any future extensions that use message-id parameters. Suppose next year, someone writes a new RFC without having read mine that adds a new command “RUTA” that rutabagas the message specified on its command line.
(What? To rutabaga isn’t a verb? Get that heckler out of here!)
The wording could be: “Any command available on a service that advertises this capability in its CAPA response, that accepts a message-id parameter that is bounded on both sides by either the space character or CRLF, and normally only allows numeric values in this position, MUST allow a uid-colon-unique-id alternative in place of the message=id parameter.”
(In other words, this capability, only changes commands where a unique-id with a prefix can unambiguously be distinguished from a numeric message-id.
My inclination is for the RFC defining this capability exhaustively lists the commands it modifies to just the ones we know about. (RETR, TOP, DELE, LIST, UIDL.) I would add a note that strongly encourages authors of future extensions to allow UID: parameters as part of their standard. If someone does add a RUTA command without such a note, then strictly speaking, the client shouldn’t try and use a UID: parameter with the RUTA command, but probably will.
I’m on the fence. What do you think?
RFC 1939 that defines POP3, makes a couple of allowances with the UIDL command that would make UID: parameters problematic. A server is allowed to reuse unique-ids in a single mailbox, but only if the contents of two messages are identical. A server is also allowed to reuse a unique-id once the original message using that unique-id has been deleted.
Since these allowances would introduce a complication to which message is being referenced, any server advertising this capability (in RFC language) MUST NOT exercise these two allowances. If a server advertises UID parameters, it is also promising that its unique-ids really are unique.
Fortunately, all mail servers I’ve looked at can already make this promise, either they use a hash but add their own “Received:” header or they assign an incrementing ID to each incomming message.