[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 5530

Network Working Group                                   Arnt Gulbrandsen
Internet-Draft                                    Oryx Mail Systems GmbH
Intended Status: Proposed Standard                        April 16, 2008

                          IMAP Response Codes

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   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-

   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. The list of Internet-
   Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft expires in August 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).


   IMAP responses consist of a response type (OK, NO, BAD), an optional
   machine-readable response code and a human-readable text.

   This document collects and documents a variety of machine-readable
   response codes, for better interoperation and error reporting.

Gulbrandsen               Expires October 2008                  [Page 1]

Internet-draft                                                April 2008

1.  Conventions Used in This Document

   Formal syntax is defined by [RFC5234] as modified by [RFC3501].

   Example lines prefaced by "C:" are sent by the client and ones
   prefaced by "S:" by the server. "[...]" means elision.

2. Introduction

   [RFC3501] section 7.1 defines a number of response codes which can
   help tell an IMAP client why a command failed. However, experience
   has shown that more codes are useful. For example, it is useful for a
   client to know that an authentication attempt failed because of a
   server problem as opposed to a password problem.

   Currently many IMAP servers use English-language human-readable text
   to describe these errors, and a few IMAP clients attempt to translate
   this text into the user's language.

   This document names a variety of errors as response codes. It is
   based on errors checked and reported in some IMAP server
   implementations, and on needs in some IMAP clients.

   This document doesn't require any servers to test for these errors,
   or any clients to test for these names. It only names errors for
   better reporting and handling.

3. Response Codes

   This section defines all the new response codes. Each definition is
   followed by one or more examples.

   UNAVAILABLE Temporary failure because a subsystem is down. For
               example, an IMAP server which uses an LDAP or Radius
               server for authentication might use this when the
               LDAP/Radius server is down.

               C: a LOGIN "fred" "foo"
               S: a NO [UNAVAILABLE] User's backend down for maintenance

   AUTHENTICATIONFAILED Authentication failed for some reason which the
               server is not willing to elaborate. Typically this
               includes "unknown user" and "bad password".

               This is the same as not sending any response code, except
               that when a client sees AUTHENTICATIONFAILED, it knows

Gulbrandsen               Expires October 2008                  [Page 2]

Internet-draft                                                April 2008

               that the problem wasn't e.g. UNAVAILABLE, so there's no
               point in trying the same login/password again later.

               C: b LOGIN "fred" "foo"
               S: b NO [AUTHENTICATIONFAILED] Authentication failed

   AUTHORIZATIONFAILED Authentication succeeded, but authorization
               failed. This is only applicable when the authentication
               and authorization identities are different.

               C: c AUTHENTICATE PLAIN
               S: c NO [AUTHORIZATIONFAILED] No such auth-ID

   EXPIRED     Authentication succeeded or the server didn't have the
               necessary data any more, but access is no longer
               permitted using that passphrase. The client or user
               should get a new passphrase.

               C: d login "fred" "foo"
               S: d NO [EXPIRED] That password isn't valid any more

   CONTACTADMIN The user should contact the system administrator or
               support desk.

               CONTACTADMIN may include suitable contact details (a
               telephone number, email address, a Jabber/XMPP address,
               or any combination).

               C: e login "fred" "foo"
               S: e OK [CONTACTADMIN]

   ACL         The access control system (e.g. ACL, see [RFC4314]) does
               not permit this user to carry out an operation, such as
               selecting or creating a mailbox.

               C: f select "/archive/projects/experiment-iv"
               S: f NO [ACL] Access denied

   INUSE       An operation has not been carried out because it involves
               sawing off a branch someone else is sitting on. Someone
               else may be holding an exclusive lock needed for this
               operation, or it may involve deleting a resource someone
               else is using, typically a mailbox.

               The operation may succeed if the client tries again

Gulbrandsen               Expires October 2008                  [Page 3]

Internet-draft                                                April 2008

               C: g remove "/archive/projects/experiment-iv"
               S: g NO [INUSE] Mailbox in use

   EXPUNGEISSUED Someone else has issued an EXPUNGE for the same
               mailbox. The client may want to issue NOOP soon.
               [RFC2180] discusses this subject in depth.

               C: h search from fred@example.com
               S: * SEARCH 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 42
               S: h OK [EXPUNGEISSUED] Search completed

   CORRUPTION  The server discovered that some relevant data (e.g. the
               mailbox) are corrupt. May be followed by the name of the
               relevant mailbox.

               C: i select "/archive/projects/experiment-iv"
               S: i NO [CORRUPTION] Cannot open mailbox

   SERVERBUG   The server encountered a bug in itself or violated one of
               its own invariants.

               C: j select "/archive/projects/experiment-iv"
               S: j NO [SERVERBUG] This should not happen

   CLIENTBUG   The server has detected a client bug. This can accompany
               all of OK, NO and BAD, depending on what the client bug

               C: k1 select "/archive/projects/experiment-iv"
               S: k1 OK [READONLY] Done
               C: k2 status "/archive/projects/experiment-iv"
               S: k2 OK [CLIENTBUG] Done

   NOBODYPART  The specified bodypart does not exist.

               (This seems unjustified. It will be removed before IETF
               LC unless I learn a sensible use case before then.)

   CANNOT      The operation violates some invariant of the server and
               can never succeed.

               C: l create "///////"
               S: l NO [CANNOT] Unsupported name

   LIMIT       The operation ran up against an implementation limit of
               some kind, such as the number of flags on a single

Gulbrandsen               Expires October 2008                  [Page 4]

Internet-draft                                                April 2008

               message or number of flags used in a mailbox.

               C: m store 42 FLAGS f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 ... f250
               S: m NO [LIMIT] At most 32 flags in one mailbox supported

   OVERQUOTA   The user is or would be over quota after the operation.
               (The user may or may not be over quota already.)

               C: n1 uid copy 1:* oldmail
               S: n1 NO [OVERQUOTA] Sorry

               C: n2 uid copy 1:* oldmail
               S: n2 OK [OVERQUOTA] You are now over your soft quota

   ALREADYEXISTS The operation attempts to create something which
               already exists, such as when the CREATE or RENAME
               directories attempt to create a mailbox and there is one
               of that name.

               C: o RENAME this that
               S: o NO [ALREADYEXISTS] Mailbox "that" already exists

   NONEXISTENT The operation attempts to delete something which does not
               exist. Similar to ALREADYEXISTS.

               C: p RENAME this that
               S: p NO [NONEXISTENT] No such mailbox

4. Formal Syntax

   The following syntax specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur
   Form (ABNF) notation as specified in [RFC5234]. [RFC3501] defines the
   non-terminal "resp-text-code".

   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.

        resp-text-code =/ "UNAVAILABLE" / "AUTHENTICATIONFAILED" /
                         "AUTHORIZATIONFAILED" / "EXPIRED" /
                         "CONTACTADMIN" *contact-details / "ACL" /
                         "INUSE" / "EXPUNGEISSUED" / "CORRUPTION" /
                         "SERVERBUG" / "CLIENTBUG" / "NOBODYPART" /
                         "CANNOT" / "LIMIT" / "OVERQUOTA" /
                         "ALREADYEXISTS" / "NONEXISTENT"

Gulbrandsen               Expires October 2008                  [Page 5]

Internet-draft                                                April 2008

        contact-detail = SP ( "EMAIL" / "XMPP" / "TEL" ) SP string

5. Security considerations

   Revealing information about a passphrase to unauthenticated IMAP
   clients has bad karma.

   Response codes are easier to parse than human-readable text. This can
   amplify the consequences of an information leak. For example,
   selecting a mailbox can fail because the mailbox doesn't exist,
   because the user doesn't have the "l" right (right to know the
   mailbox exists) or "r" (right to read the mailbox). If the server
   sent different responses in the first two cases in the past, only
   malevolent clients would discover it. With response codes it's
   possible, perhaps probable, that benevolent clients forward the
   leaked information to the user. Server authors are encouraged to be
   particularly careful with the ACL and authentication-related

6. IANA considerations

   The IANA is requested to create a new registry, tentatively named
   imap-response-codes, and populate it as follows:

       REFERRAL             RFC 2221
       ALERT                RFC 3501
       BADCHARSET           RFC 3501
       PARSE                RFC 3501
       PERMANENTFLAGS       RFC 3501
       READ-ONLY            RFC 3501
       READ-WRITE           RFC 3501
       TRYCREATE            RFC 3501
       UIDNEXT              RFC 3501
       UIDVALIDITY          RFC 3501
       UNSEEN               RFC 3501
       UNKNOWN-CTE          RFC 3516
       UIDNOTSTICKY         RFC 4315
       APPENDUID            RFC 4315
       COPYUID              RFC 4315
       URLMECH              RFC 4467
       TOOBIG               RFC 4469
       BADURL               RFC 4469
       HIGHESTMODSEQ        RFC 4551
       NOMODSEQ             RFC 4551
       MODIFIED             RFC 4551

Gulbrandsen               Expires October 2008                  [Page 6]

Internet-draft                                                April 2008

       CLOSED               RFC 5162
       UNAVAILABLE          RFC (this)
       EXPIRED              RFC (this)
       CONTACTADMIN         RFC (this)
       ACL                  RFC (this)
       INUSE                RFC (this)
       EXPUNGEISSUED        RFC (this)
       CORRUPTION           RFC (this)
       SERVERBUG            RFC (this)
       CLIENTBUG            RFC (this)
       NOBODYPART           RFC (this)
       CANNOT               RFC (this)
       LIMIT                RFC (this)
       OVERQUOTA            RFC (this)
       ALREADYEXISTS        RFC (this)
       NONEXISTENT          RFC (this)

   Further, two drafts in the RFC-editor's queue define new response
   codes. Presumably they will have RFC numbers when this document is
   processed, but their draft names are given here:

       BADCOMPARATOR        (draft-ietf-imapext-i18n-15.txt)
       ANNOTATE TOOBIG      (draft-ietf-imapext-annotate-16.txt)
       ANNOTATE TOOMANY     (draft-ietf-imapext-annotate-16.txt)
       ANNOTATIONS          (draft-ietf-imapext-annotate-16.txt)

   The RFC editor is requested to delete this entire text, and insert a
   sentence mentioning the registrly's URL instead.

7. Acknowledgements

   Peter Coates, Mark Crispin, Philip Guenther, Philip Van Hoof, Alexey
   Melnikov, Ken Murchison and Dale Wiggins helped with this document.

8. Normative References

   [RFC3501]  Crispin, "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
              4rev1", RFC 3501, University of Washington, June 2003.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", RFC 5234, Brandenburg
              Internetworking, THUS plc, January 2008.

Gulbrandsen               Expires October 2008                  [Page 7]

Internet-draft                                                April 2008

9. Informative References

   [RFC2180]  Gahrns, "IMAP4 Multi-Accessed Mailbox Practice", RFC 2180,
              Microsoft, July 1997.

   [RFC4314]  Melnikov, "IMAP4 Access Control List (ACL) Extension", RFC
              4314, December 2005.

10. Author's Address

   Arnt Gulbrandsen
   Oryx Mail Systems GmbH
   Schweppermannstr. 8
   D-81671 Muenchen

   Fax: +49 89 4502 9758

   Email: arnt@oryx.com

Gulbrandsen               Expires October 2008                  [Page 8]

Internet-draft                                                April 2008

11. Intellectual Property Statement

   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

   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-

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


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Gulbrandsen               Expires October 2008                  [Page 9]

Internet-draft                                                April 2008

          (RFC Editor: Please delete everything after this point)

Open Issues

   I took TOOWEAK out since it doesn't seem to have real purpose: "The
   server requires a stronger authentication mechanism.  If the
   connection is not encrypted, the client could also try the same
   mechanism via an encrypted connection." But now I remember why it was
   there: The server may offer e.g. AUTH=CRAM-MD5, but not be able to
   carry that out for every user. Maybe it should be returned with a
   better name. I'd like to hear whether anyone actually does this.

   READ-ONLY is misspelled in one case.

Changes since -00


   - ACCESSDENIED renamed ACL to clarify its scope.

   - NOBODYPART scheduled for deletion if noone minds.

   - EXISTS renamed ALREADYEXISTS to avoid confusion with the EXISTS
     response. Mustn't overload developer brains. (Do unto others.)

   - Added a security note about how response codes makes some
     information leaks worse.

   - A couple of open issues.

Changes since -01

   - Two people independently argued that merging ALREADYEXISTS and
     NONEXISTENT was bad because of RENAME. Open issue closed.

   - An example for each response code.

   - EXPUNGED renamed, see EXISTS above.

   - EXPUNGEISSUED semantics changed to be 2180-neutral. It should now
     be equally useful no matter which part of 2180 the server

   - CONTACTADMIN vs. ALERT, an open issue.

Gulbrandsen               Expires October 2008                 [Page 10]

Internet-draft                                                April 2008

   - Added an IANA considerations section registering every (?) response
     code defined so far.

   - Added contact details to CONTACTADMIN, by request.

   - Resolved the CA/SB/C issue: The three responses may be handled
     similarly by some clients, but they may equally well be handled
     differently, so they should not be folded.

Gulbrandsen               Expires October 2008                 [Page 11]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/