💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc1082.gmi captured on 2022-04-28 at 22:47:56. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-05)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group M. Rose
Request for Comments: 1082 TWG
November 1988
Post Office Protocol - Version 3
Extended Service Offerings
Status of This Memo
This memo suggests a simple method for workstations to dynamically
access mail from a discussion group server, as an extension to an
earlier memo which dealt with dynamically accessing mail from a
mailbox server using the Post Office Protocol - Version 3 (POP3).
This RFC specifies a proposed protocol for the Internet community,
and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. All of the
extensions described in this memo to the POP3 are OPTIONAL.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Introduction and Motivation
It is assumed that the reader is familiar with RFC 1081 that
discusses the Post Office Protocol - Version 3 (POP3) [RFC1081].
This memo describes extensions to the POP3 which enhance the service
it offers to clients. This additional service permits a client host
to access discussion group mail, which is often kept in a separate
spool area, using the general POP3 facilities.
The next section describes the evolution of discussion groups and the
technologies currently used to implement them. To summarize:
o An exploder is used to map from a single address to
a list of addresses which subscribe to the list, and redirects
any subsequent error reports associated with the delivery of
each message. This has two primary advantages:
- Subscribers need know only a single address
- Responsible parties get the error reports and not
the subscribers
Rose [Page 1]
RFC 1082 POP3 Extended Service November 1988
o Typically, each subscription address is not a person's private
maildrop, but a system-wide maildrop, which can be accessed
by more than one user. This has several advantages:
- Only a single copy of each message need traverse the
net for a given site (which may contain several local
hosts). This conserves bandwidth and cycles.
- Only a single copy of each message need reside on each
subscribing host. This conserves disk space.
- The private maildrop for each user is not cluttered
with discussion group mail.
Despite this optimization of resources, further economy can be
achieved at sites with more than one host. Typically, sites with
more than one host either:
1. Replicate discussion group mail on each host. This
results in literally gigabytes of disk space committed to
unnecessarily store redundant information.
2. Keep discussion group mail on one host and give all users a
login on that host (in addition to any other logins they may
have). This is usually a gross inconvenience for users who
work on other hosts, or a burden to users who are forced to
work on that host.
As discussed in [RFC1081], the problem of giving workstations dynamic
access to mail from a mailbox server has been explored in great
detail (originally there was [RFC918], this prompted the author to
write [RFC1081], independently of this [RFC918] was upgraded to
[RFC937]). A natural solution to the problem outlined above is to
keep discussion group mail on a mailbox server at each site and
permit different hosts at that site to employ the POP3 to access
discussion group mail. If implemented properly, this avoids the
problems of both strategies outlined above.
ASIDE: It might be noted that a good distributed filesystem
could also solve this problem. Sadly, "good"
distributed filesystems, which do not suffer
unacceptable response time for interactive use, are
few and far between these days!
Given this motivation, now let's consider discussion groups, both in
general and from the point of view of a user agent. Following this,
extensions to the POP3 defined in [RFC1081] are presented. Finally,
some additional policy details are discussed along with some initial
experiences.
Rose [Page 2]
RFC 1082 POP3 Extended Service November 1988
What's in a Discussion Group
Since mailers and user agents first crawled out of the primordial
ARPAnet, the value of discussion groups have been appreciated,
(though their implementation has not always been well-understood).
Described simply, a discussion group is composed of a number of
subscribers with a common interest. These subscribers post mail to a
single address, known as a distribution address. From this
distribution address, a copy of the message is sent to each
subscriber. Each group has a moderator, which is the person that
administrates the group. The moderator can usually be reached at a
special address, known as a request address. Usually, the
responsibilities of the moderator are quite simple, since the mail
system handles the distribution to subscribers automatically. In
some cases, the interest group, instead of being distributed directly
to its subscribers, is put into a digest format by the moderator and
then sent to the subscribers. Although this requires more work on
the part of the moderator, such groups tend to be better organized.
Unfortunately, there are a few problems with the scheme outlined
above. First, if two users on the same host subscribe to the same
interest group, two copies of the message get delivered. This is
wasteful of both processor and disk resources.
Second, some of these groups carry a lot of traffic. Although
subscription to an group does indicate interest on the part of a
subscriber, it is usually not interesting to get 50 messages or so
delivered to the user's private maildrop each day, interspersed with
personal mail, that is likely to be of a much more important and
timely nature.
Third, if a subscriber on the distribution list for a group becomes
"bad" somehow, the originator of the message and not the moderator of
the group is notified. It is not uncommon for a large list to have
10 or so bogus addresses present. This results in the originator
being flooded with "error messages" from mailers across the Internet
stating that a given address on the list was bad. Needless to say,
the originator usually could not care less if the bogus addresses got
a copy of the message or not. The originator is merely interested in
posting a message to the group at large. Furthermore, the moderator
of the group does care if there are bogus addresses on the list, but
ironically does not receive notification.
There are various approaches which can be used to solve some or all
of these problems. Usually these involve placing an exploder agent
at the distribution source of the discussion group, which expands the
name of the group into the list of subscription addresses for the
Rose [Page 3]
RFC 1082 POP3 Extended Service November 1988
group. In the process, the exploder will also change the address
that receives error notifications to be the request address or other
responsible party.
A complementary approach, used in order to cut down on resource
utilization of all kinds, replaces all the subscribers at a single
host (or group of hosts under a single administration) with a single
address at that host. This address maps to a file on the host,
usually in a spool area, which all users can access. (Advanced
implementations can also implement private discussion groups this
way, in which a single copy of each message is kept, but is
accessible to only a select number of users on the host.)
The two approaches can be combined to avoid all of the problems
described above.
Finally, a third approach can be taken, which can be used to aid user
agents processing mail for the discussion group: In order to speed
querying of the maildrop which contains the local host's copy of the
discussion group, two other items are usually associated with the
discussion group, on a local basis. These are the maxima and the
last-date. Each time a message is received for the group on the
local host, the maxima is increased by at least one. Furthermore,
when a new maxima is generated, the current date is determined. This
is called the last date. As the message is entered into the local
maildrop, it is given the current maxima and last-date. This permits
the user agent to quickly determine if new messages are present in
the maildrop.
NOTE: The maxima may be characterized as a monotonically
increasing quanity. Although sucessive values of the
maxima need not be consecutive, any maxima assigned
is always greater than any previously assigned value.
Definition of Terms
To formalize these notions somewhat, consider the following 7
parameters which describe a given discussion group from the
perspective of the user agent (the syntax given is from [RFC822]):
Rose [Page 4]
RFC 1082 POP3 Extended Service November 1988
NAME Meaning: the name of the discussion group
Syntax: TOKEN (ALPHA *[ ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" ])
(case-insensitive recognition)
Example: unix-wizards
ALIASES Meaning: alternates names for the group, which
are locally meaningful; these are
typically used to shorten user typein
Syntax: TOKEN (case-insensitive recognition)
Example: uwiz
ADDRESS Meaning: the primary source of the group
Syntax: 822 address
Example: Unix-Wizards@BRL.MIL
REQUEST Meaning: the primary moderator of the group
Syntax: 822 address
Example: Unix-Wizards-Request@BRL.MIL
FLAGS Meaning: locally meaningful flags associated
with the discussion group; this memo
leaves interpretation of this
parameter to each POP3 implementation
Syntax: octal number
Example: 01
MAXIMA Meaning: the magic cookie associated with the
last message locally received for the
group; it is the property of the magic
cookie that it's value NEVER
decreases, and increases by at least
one each time a message is locally
received
Syntax: decimal number
Example: 1004
LASTDATE Meaning: the date that the last message was
locally received
Syntax: 822 date
Example: Thu, 19 Dec 85 10:26:48 -0800
Note that the last two values are locally determined for the maildrop
associated with the discussion group and with each message in that
maildrop. Note however that the last message in the maildrop have a
different MAXIMA and LASTDATE than the discussion group. This often
occurs when the maildrop has been archived.
Rose [Page 5]
RFC 1082 POP3 Extended Service November 1988
Finally, some local systems provide mechanisms for automatically
archiving discussion group mail. In some cases, a two-level archive
scheme is used: current mail is kept in the standard maildrop,
recent mail is kept in an archive maildrop, and older mail is kept
off-line. With this scheme, in addition to having a "standard"
maildrop for each discussion group, an "archive" maildrop may also be
available. This permits a user agent to examine the most recent
archive using the same mechanisms as those used on the current mail.
The XTND Command
The following commands are valid only in the TRANSACTION state of the
POP3. This implies that the POP3 server has already opened the
user's maildrop (which may be empty). This maildrop is called the
"default maildrop". The phrase "closes the current maildrop" has two
meanings, depending on whether the current maildrop is the default
maildrop or is a maildrop associated with a discussion group.
In the former context, when the current maildrop is closed any
messages marked as deleted are removed from the maildrop currently in
use. The exclusive-access lock on the maildrop is then released
along with any implementation-specific resources (e.g., file-
descriptors).
In the latter context, a maildrop associated with a discussion group
is considered to be read-only to the POP3 client. In this case, the
phrase "closes the current maildrop" merely means that any
implementation-specific resources are released. (Hence, the POP3
command DELE is a no-op.)
All the new facilities are introduced via a single POP3 command,
XTND. All positive reponses to the XTND command are multi-line.
The most common multi-line response to the commands contains a
"discussion group listing" which presents the name of the discussion
group along with it's maxima. In order to simplify parsing all POP3
servers are required to use a certain format for discussion group
listings:
NAME SP MAXIMA
This memo makes no requirement on what follows the maxima in the
listing. Minimal implementations should just end that line of the
response with a CRLF pair. More advanced implementations may include
other information, as parsed from the message.
NOTE: This memo STRONGLY discourages implementations from
supplying additional information in the listing.
Rose [Page 6]
RFC 1082 POP3 Extended Service November 1988
XTND BBOARDS [name]
Arguments: the name of a discussion group (optionally)
Restrictions: may only be given in the TRANSACTION state.
Discussion:
If an argument was given, the POP3 server closes the current
maildrop. The POP3 server then validates the argument as the name of
a discussion group. If this is successful, it opens the maildrop
associated with the group, and returns a multi-line response
containing the discussion group listing. If the discussion group
named is not valid, or the associated archive maildrop is not
readable by the user, then an error response is returned.
If no argument was given, the POP3 server issues a multi-line
response. After the initial +OK, for each discussion group known,
the POP3 server responds with a line containing the listing for that
discussion group. Note that only world-readable discussion groups
are included in the multi-line response.
In order to aid user agents, this memo requires an extension to the
scan listing when an "XTND BBOARDS" command has been given.
Normally, a scan listing, as generated by the LIST, takes the form:
MSGNO SIZE
where MSGNO is the number of the message being listed and SIZE is the
size of the message in octets. When reading a maildrop accessed via
"XTND BBOARDS", the scan listing takes the form
MSGNO SIZE MAXIMA
where MAXIMA is the maxima that was assigned to the message when it
was placed in the BBoard.
Possible Responses:
+OK XTND
-ERR no such bboard
Examples:
C: XTND BBOARDS
S: +OK XTND
S: system 10
S: mh-users 100
S: .
C: XTND BBOARDS system
S: + OK XTND
S: system 10
S: .
Rose [Page 7]
RFC 1082 POP3 Extended Service November 1988
XTND ARCHIVE name
Arguments: the name of a discussion group (required)
Restrictions: may only be given in the TRANSACTION state.
Discussion:
The POP3 server closes the current maildrop. The POP3 server then
validates the argument as the name of a discussion group. If this is
successful, it opens the archive maildrop associated with the group,
and returns a multi-line response containing the discussion group
listing. If the discussion group named is not valid, or the
associated archive maildrop is not readable by the user, then an
error response is returned.
In addition, the scan listing generated by the LIST command is
augmented (as described above).
Possible Responses:
+OK XTND
-ERR no such bboard Examples:
C: XTND ARCHIVE system
S: + OK XTND
S: system 3
S: .
XTND X-BBOARDS name
Arguments: the name of a discussion group (required)
Restrictions: may only be given in the TRANSACTION state.
Discussion:
The POP3 server validates the argument as the name of a
discussion group. If this is unsuccessful, then an error
response is returned. Otherwise a multi-line response is
returned. The first 14 lines of this response (after the
initial +OK) are defined in this memo. Minimal implementations
need not include other information (and may omit certain
information, outputing a bare CRLF pair). More advanced
implementations may include other information.
Line Information (refer to "Definition of Terms")
---- -----------
1 NAME
2 ALIASES, separated by SP
3 system-specific: maildrop
4 system-specific: archive maildrop
5 system-specific: information
6 system-specific: maildrop map
7 system-specific: encrypted password
8 system-specific: local leaders, separated by SP
Rose [Page 8]
RFC 1082 POP3 Extended Service November 1988
9 ADDRESS
10 REQUEST
11 system-specific: incoming feed
12 system-specific: outgoing feeds
13 FLAGS SP MAXIMA
14 LASTDATE
Most of this information is entirely too specific to the UCI Version
of the Rand MH Message Handling System [MRose85]. Nevertheless,
lines 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are of general interest, regardless of
the implementation.
Possible Responses:
+OK XTND
-ERR no such bboard
Examples:
C: XTND X-BBOARDS system
S: + OK XTND
S: system
S: local general
S: /usr/bboards/system.mbox
S: /usr/bboards/archive/system.mbox
S: /usr/bboards/.system.cnt
S: /usr/bboards/.system.map
S: *
S: mother
S: system@nrtc.northrop.com
S: system-request@nrtc.northrop.com
S:
S: dist-system@nrtc-gremlin.northrop.com
S: 01 10
S: Thu, 19 Dec 85 00:08:49 -0800
S: .
Policy Notes
Depending on the particular entity administrating the POP3 service
host, two additional policies might be implemented:
1. Private Discussion Groups
In the general case, discussion groups are world-readable, any user,
once logged in (via a terminal, terminal server, or POP3, etc.), is
able to read the maildrop for each discussion group known to the POP3
service host. Nevertheless, it is desirable, usually for privacy
reasons, to implement private discussion groups as well.
Support of this is consistent with the extensions outlined in this
Rose [Page 9]
RFC 1082 POP3 Extended Service November 1988
memo. Once the AUTHORIZATION state has successfully concluded, the
POP3 server grants the user access to exactly those discussion groups
the POP3 service host permits the authenticated user to access. As a
"security" feature, discussion groups associated with unreadable
maildrops should not be listed in a positive response to the XTND
BBOARDS command.
2. Anonymous POP3 Users
In order to minimize the authentication problem, a policy permitting
"anonymous" access to the world-readable maildrops for discussion
groups on the POP3 server may be implemented.
Support of this is consistent with the extensions outlined in this
memo. The POP3 server can be modified to accept a USER command for a
well-known pseudonym (i.e., "anonymous") which is valid with any PASS
command. As a "security" feature, it is advisable to limit this kind
of access to only hosts at the local site, or to hosts named in an
access list.
Experiences and Conclusions
All of the facilities described in this memo and in [RFC1081] have
been implemented in MH #6.1. Initial experiences have been, on the
whole, very positive.
After the first implementation, some performance tuning was required.
This consisted primarily of caching the datastructures which describe
discussion groups in the POP3 server. A second optimization
pertained to the client: the program most commonly used to read
BBoards in MH was modified to retrieve messages only when needed.
Two schemes are used:
o If only the headers (and the first few lines of the body) of
the message are required (e.g., for a scan listing), then only
these are retrieved. The resulting output is then cached, on
a per-message basis.
o If the entire message is required, then it is retrieved intact,
and cached locally.
With these optimizations, response time is quite adequate when the
POP3 server and client are connected via a high-speed local area
network. In fact, the author uses this mechanism to access certain
private discussion groups over the Internet. In this case, response
is still good. When a 9.6Kbps modem is inserted in the path,
response went from good to almost tolerable (fortunately the author
only reads a few discussion groups in this fashion).
Rose [Page 10]
RFC 1082 POP3 Extended Service November 1988
To conclude: the POP3 is a good thing, not only for personal mail but
for discussion group mail as well.
References
[RFC1081] Rose, M., "Post Office Protocol - Verison 3 (POP3)", RFC
1081, TWG, November 1988.
[MRose85] Rose, M., and J. Romine, "The Rand MH Message Handling
System: User's Manual", University of California, Irvine,
November 1985.
[RFC822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA-Internet
Text Messages", RFC 822, University of Delaware, August
1982.
[RFC918] Reynolds, J., "Post Office Protocol", RFC 918,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, October 1984.
[RFC937] Butler, M., J. Postel, D. Chase, J. Goldberger, and J.
Reynolds, "Post Office Protocol - Version 2", RFC 937,
USC/Information Sciences Institute, February 1985.
Author's Address:
Marshall Rose
The Wollongong Group
1129 San Antonio Rd.
Palo Alto, California 94303
Phone: (415) 962-7100
Email: MRose@TWG.COM
Rose [Page 11]