💾 Archived View for gemini.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc4314.txt captured on 2023-05-24 at 20:26:43.
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group A. Melnikov
Request for Comments: 4314 Isode Ltd.
Obsoletes: 2086 December 2005
Category: Standards Track
IMAP4 Access Control List (ACL) Extension
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
The Access Control List (ACL) extension (RFC 2086) of the Internet
Message Access Protocol (IMAP) permits mailbox access control lists
to be retrieved and manipulated through the IMAP protocol.
This document is a revision of RFC 2086. It defines several new
access control rights and clarifies which rights are required for
different IMAP commands.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Overview .......................................3
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document ..........................3
2. Access Control ..................................................3
2.1. Standard Rights ............................................5
2.1.1. Obsolete Rights .....................................5
2.2. Rights Defined in RFC 2086 .................................8
3. Access control management commands and responses ................8
3.1. SETACL Command .............................................8
3.2. DELETEACL Command ..........................................9
3.3. GETACL Command ............................................10
3.4. LISTRIGHTS Command ........................................10
3.5. MYRIGHTS Command ..........................................11
3.6. ACL Response ..............................................11
3.7. LISTRIGHTS Response .......................................12
3.8. MYRIGHTS Response .........................................12
4. Rights Required to Perform Different IMAP4rev1 Commands ........12
5. Other Considerations ...........................................17
5.1. Additional Requirements and Implementation Notes ..........17
5.1.1. Servers ............................................17
5.1.2. Clients ............................................18
5.2. Mapping of ACL Rights to READ-WRITE and READ-ONLY
Response Codes ............................................19
6. Security Considerations ........................................20
7. Formal Syntax ..................................................21
8. IANA Considerations ............................................22
9. Internationalization Considerations ............................22
Appendix A. Changes since RFC 2086 ................................23
Appendix B. Compatibility with RFC 2086 ...........................24
Appendix C. Known Deficiencies ....................................24
Appendix D. Acknowledgements ......................................25
Normative References ..............................................25
Informative References ............................................25
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
1. Introduction and Overview
The ACL (Access Control List) extension of the Internet Message
Access Protocol [IMAP4] permits mailbox access control lists to be
retrieved and manipulated through the IMAP protocol.
This document is a revision of RFC 2086 [RFC2086]. It tries to
clarify different ambiguities in RFC 2086, in particular, the use of
UTF-8 [UTF-8] in access identifiers, which rights are required for
different IMAP4 commands, and how READ-WRITE/READ-ONLY response codes
are related to ACL.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and
server respectively.
In all examples "/" character is used as hierarchy separator.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [KEYWORDS].
The phrase "ACL server" is just a shortcut for saying "IMAP server
that supports ACL extension as defined in this document".
2. Access Control
The ACL extension is present in any IMAP4 implementation that returns
"ACL" as one of the supported capabilities to the CAPABILITY command.
A server implementation conformant to this document MUST also return
rights (see below) not defined in Section 2.2 in the "RIGHTS="
capability.
An access control list is a set of <access identifier,rights> pairs.
An ACL applies to a mailbox name.
Access identifier (or just "identifier") is a UTF-8 [UTF-8] string.
The identifier "anyone" is reserved to refer to the universal
identity (all authentications, including anonymous). All user name
strings accepted by the LOGIN or AUTHENTICATE commands to
authenticate to the IMAP server are reserved as identifiers for the
corresponding users. Identifiers starting with a dash ("-") are
reserved for "negative rights", described below. All other
identifier strings are interpreted in an implementation-defined
manner.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
Rights is a string listing a (possibly empty) set of alphanumeric
characters, each character listing a set of operations that is being
controlled. Lowercase letters are reserved for "standard" rights,
listed in Section 2.1. (Note that for compatibility with deployed
clients and servers uppercase rights are not allowed.) The set of
standard rights can only be extended by a standards-track document.
Digits are reserved for implementation- or site-defined rights.
An implementation MAY tie rights together or MAY force rights to
always or never be granted to particular identifiers. For example,
in an implementation that uses UNIX mode bits, the rights "swite" are
tied, the "a" right is always granted to the owner of a mailbox and
is never granted to another user. If rights are tied in an
implementation, the implementation must be conservative in granting
rights in response to SETACL commands--unless all rights in a tied
set are specified, none of that set should be included in the ACL
entry for that identifier. A client can discover the set of rights
that may be granted to a given identifier in the ACL for a given
mailbox name by using the LISTRIGHTS command.
It is possible for multiple identifiers in an access control list to
apply to a given user. For example, an ACL may include rights to be
granted to the identifier matching the user, one or more
implementation-defined identifiers matching groups that include the
user, and/or the identifier "anyone". How these rights are combined
to determine the user's access is implementation defined. An
implementation may choose, for example, to use the union of the
rights granted to the applicable identifiers. An implementation may
instead choose, for example, to use only those rights granted to the
most specific identifier present in the ACL. A client can determine
the set of rights granted to the logged-in user for a given mailbox
name by using the MYRIGHTS command.
When an identifier in an ACL starts with a dash ("-"), that indicates
that associated rights are to be removed from the identifier prefixed
by the dash. This is referred to as a "negative right". This
differs from DELETEACL in that a negative right is added to the ACL
and is a part of the calculation of the rights.
Let's assume that an identifier "fred" refers to a user with login
"fred". If the identifier "-fred" is granted the "w" right, that
indicates that the "w" right is to be removed from users matching the
identifier "fred", even though the user "fred" might have the "w"
right as a consequence of some other identifier in the ACL. A
DELETEACL of "fred" simply deletes the identifier "fred" from the
ACL; it does not affect any rights that the user "fred" may get from
another entry in the ACL, in particular it doesn't affect rights
granted to the identifier "-fred".
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
Server implementations are not required to support "negative right"
identifiers.
2.1. Standard Rights
The currently defined standard rights are (note that the list below
doesn't list all commands that use a particular right):
l - lookup (mailbox is visible to LIST/LSUB commands, SUBSCRIBE
mailbox)
r - read (SELECT the mailbox, perform STATUS)
s - keep seen/unseen information across sessions (set or clear
\SEEN flag via STORE, also set \SEEN during APPEND/COPY/
FETCH BODY[...])
w - write (set or clear flags other than \SEEN and \DELETED via
STORE, also set them during APPEND/COPY)
i - insert (perform APPEND, COPY into mailbox)
p - post (send mail to submission address for mailbox,
not enforced by IMAP4 itself)
k - create mailboxes (CREATE new sub-mailboxes in any
implementation-defined hierarchy, parent mailbox for the new
mailbox name in RENAME)
x - delete mailbox (DELETE mailbox, old mailbox name in RENAME)
t - delete messages (set or clear \DELETED flag via STORE, set
\DELETED flag during APPEND/COPY)
e - perform EXPUNGE and expunge as a part of CLOSE
a - administer (perform SETACL/DELETEACL/GETACL/LISTRIGHTS)
2.1.1. Obsolete Rights
Due to ambiguity in RFC 2086, some existing RFC 2086 server
implementations use the "c" right to control the DELETE command.
Others chose to use the "d" right to control the DELETE command. For
the former group, let's define the "create" right as union of the "k"
and "x" rights, and the "delete" right as union of the "e" and "t"
rights. For the latter group, let's define the "create" rights as a
synonym to the "k" right, and the "delete" right as union of the "e",
"t", and "x" rights.
For compatibility with RFC 2086, this section defines two virtual
rights "d" and "c".
If a client includes the "d" right in a rights list, then it MUST be
treated as if the client had included every member of the "delete"
right. (It is not an error for a client to specify both the "d"
right and one or more members of the "delete" right, but the effect
is no different than if just the "d" right or all members of the
"delete" right had been specified.)
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
When any of the "delete" member rights is set in a list of rights,
the server MUST also include the "d" right when returning the list in
a MYRIGHTS or ACL response. This is to enable older clients
conforming to RFC 2086 to work with newer servers. (*)
Example: C: A001 SeTacl INBOX/Drafts David lrswida
S: A001 OK Setacl complete
The client has specified the "d" right in the SETACL command above
and it expands to "et" on the server:
C: A002 getacl INBOX/Drafts
S: * ACL INBOX Fred rwipslxcetda David lrswideta
S: A002 OK Getacl complete
If the identifier specified in the LISTRIGHTS command can be granted
any of the "delete" member rights on a mailbox, then the server MUST
include the "d" right in the corresponding LISTRIGHTS response. (*)
If the member rights aren't tied to non-member rights, then the "d"
right is returned by itself in the LISTRIGHTS response. If any of
the member rights needs to be tied to one (or more) non-member right,
then the "d" right and all of the member rights need to be tied to
the same non-member right(s) (**).
If a client includes the "c" right in a rights list, then it MUST be
treated as if the client had included every member of the "create"
right. (It is not an error for a client to specify both the "c"
right and one or more members of the "create" right, but the effect
is no different than if just the "c" right or all members of the
"create" right had been specified.)
When any of the "create" member rights is set in a list of rights,
the server MUST also include the "c" right when returning the list in
a MYRIGHTS or ACL response. This is to enable older clients
conforming to RFC 2086 to work with newer servers. (*)
Example: C: A003 Setacl INBOX/Drafts Byron lrswikda
S: A001 OK Setacl complete
C: A002 getAcl INBOX/Drafts
S: * ACL INBOX Fred rwipslxcetda Byron lrswikcdeta
S: A002 OK Getacl complete
The client has specified the "d" right in the SETACL command above
and it expands to "et" on the server: As the client has specified the
"k" right (which is a member of the "c" right), the server also
returns the "c" right.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
If the identifier specified in the LISTRIGHTS command can be granted
any of the "create" member rights on a mailbox, then the server MUST
include the "c" right in the corresponding LISTRIGHTS response. (*)
If the member rights aren't tied to non-member rights, then the "c"
right is returned by itself in the LISTRIGHTS response. If any of
the member rights needs to be tied to one (or more) non-member right,
then the "c" right and all of the member rights need to be tied to
the same non-member right(s) (**).
Example: The server that ties the rights as follows:
lr s w i p k x t
and c=k
will return:
S: * LISTRIGHTS archive/imap anyone ""
lr s w i p k x t c d
Example: The server that ties the rights as follows:
lr s w i p k xte
and c=k
will return:
S: * LISTRIGHTS archive/imap anyone ""
lr s w i p k xte c d
Example: The server that ties the rights as follows:
lr s w i p k x te
and c=k
will return:
S: * LISTRIGHTS archive/imap anyone ""
lr s w i p k c x te d
Example: The server that ties the rights as follows:
lr swte i p k x
and c=kx
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
will return:
S: * LISTRIGHTS archive/imap anyone ""
lr swted i p k x c
(*) Clients conforming to this document MUST ignore the virtual "d"
and "c" rights in MYRIGHTS, ACL, and LISTRIGHTS responses.
(**) The IMAPEXT Working Group has debated this issue in great length
and after reviewing existing ACL implementations concluded that
this is a reasonable restriction.
2.2. Rights Defined in RFC 2086
The "RIGHTS=" capability MUST NOT include any of the rights defined
in RFC 2086: "l", "r", "s", "w", "i", "p", "a", "c", "d", and the
digits ("0" .. "9").
3. Access control management commands and responses
Servers, when processing a command that has an identifier as a
parameter (i.e., any of SETACL, DELETEACL, and LISTRIGHTS commands),
SHOULD first prepare the received identifier using "SASLprep" profile
[SASLprep] of the "stringprep" algorithm [Stringprep]. If the
preparation of the identifier fails or results in an empty string,
the server MUST refuse to perform the command with a BAD response.
Note that Section 6 recommends additional identifier's verification
steps.
3.1. SETACL Command
Arguments: mailbox name
identifier
access right modification
Data: no specific data for this command
Result: OK - setacl completed
NO - setacl failure: can't set acl
BAD - arguments invalid
The SETACL command changes the access control list on the specified
mailbox so that the specified identifier is granted permissions as
specified in the third argument.
The third argument is a string containing an optional plus ("+") or
minus ("-") prefix, followed by zero or more rights characters. If
the string starts with a plus, the following rights are added to any
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
existing rights for the identifier. If the string starts with a
minus, the following rights are removed from any existing rights for
the identifier. If the string does not start with a plus or minus,
the rights replace any existing rights for the identifier.
Note that an unrecognized right MUST cause the command to return the
BAD response. In particular, the server MUST NOT silently ignore
unrecognized rights.
Example: C: A001 GETACL INBOX/Drafts
S: * ACL INBOX/Drafts Fred rwipslxetad Chris lrswi
S: A001 OK Getacl complete
C: A002 SETACL INBOX/Drafts Chris +cda
S: A002 OK Setacl complete
C: A003 GETACL INBOX/Drafts
S: * ACL INBOX/Drafts Fred rwipslxetad Chris lrswicdakxet
S: A003 OK Getacl complete
C: A035 SETACL INBOX/Drafts John lrQswicda
S: A035 BAD Uppercase rights are not allowed
C: A036 SETACL INBOX/Drafts John lrqswicda
S: A036 BAD The q right is not supported
3.2. DELETEACL Command
Arguments: mailbox name
identifier
Data: no specific data for this command
Result: OK - deleteacl completed
NO - deleteacl failure: can't delete acl
BAD - arguments invalid
The DELETEACL command removes any <identifier,rights> pair for the
specified identifier from the access control list for the specified
mailbox.
Example: C: B001 getacl INBOX
S: * ACL INBOX Fred rwipslxetad -Fred wetd $team w
S: B001 OK Getacl complete
C: B002 DeleteAcl INBOX Fred
S: B002 OK Deleteacl complete
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
C: B003 GETACL INBOX
S: * ACL INBOX -Fred wetd $team w
S: B003 OK Getacl complete
3.3. GETACL Command
Arguments: mailbox name
Data: untagged responses: ACL
Result: OK - getacl completed
NO - getacl failure: can't get acl
BAD - arguments invalid
The GETACL command returns the access control list for mailbox in an
untagged ACL response.
Some implementations MAY permit multiple forms of an identifier to
reference the same IMAP account. Usually, such implementations will
have a canonical form that is stored internally. An ACL response
caused by a GETACL command MAY include a canonicalized form of the
identifier that might be different from the one used in the
corresponding SETACL command.
Example: C: A002 GETACL INBOX
S: * ACL INBOX Fred rwipsldexta
S: A002 OK Getacl complete
3.4. LISTRIGHTS Command
Arguments: mailbox name
identifier
Data: untagged responses: LISTRIGHTS
Result: OK - listrights completed
NO - listrights failure: can't get rights list
BAD - arguments invalid
The LISTRIGHTS command takes a mailbox name and an identifier and
returns information about what rights can be granted to the
identifier in the ACL for the mailbox.
Some implementations MAY permit multiple forms of an identifier to
reference the same IMAP account. Usually, such implementations will
have a canonical form that is stored internally. A LISTRIGHTS
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
response caused by a LISTRIGHTS command MUST always return the same
form of an identifier as specified by the client. This is to allow
the client to correlate the response with the command.
Example: C: a001 LISTRIGHTS ~/Mail/saved smith
S: * LISTRIGHTS ~/Mail/saved smith la r swicdkxte
S: a001 OK Listrights completed
Example: C: a005 listrights archive/imap anyone
S: * LISTRIGHTS archive.imap anyone ""
l r s w i p k x t e c d a 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
S: a005 Listrights successful
3.5. MYRIGHTS Command
Arguments: mailbox name
Data: untagged responses: MYRIGHTS
Result: OK - myrights completed
NO - myrights failure: can't get rights
BAD - arguments invalid
The MYRIGHTS command returns the set of rights that the user has to
mailbox in an untagged MYRIGHTS reply.
Example: C: A003 MYRIGHTS INBOX
S: * MYRIGHTS INBOX rwiptsldaex
S: A003 OK Myrights complete
3.6. ACL Response
Data: mailbox name
zero or more identifier rights pairs
The ACL response occurs as a result of a GETACL command. The first
string is the mailbox name for which this ACL applies. This is
followed by zero or more pairs of strings; each pair contains the
identifier for which the entry applies followed by the set of rights
that the identifier has.
Section 2.1.1 details additional server requirements related to
handling of the virtual "d" and "c" rights.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
3.7. LISTRIGHTS Response
Data: mailbox name
identifier
required rights
list of optional rights
The LISTRIGHTS response occurs as a result of a LISTRIGHTS command.
The first two strings are the mailbox name and identifier for which
this rights list applies. Following the identifier is a string
containing the (possibly empty) set of rights the identifier will
always be granted in the mailbox.
Following this are zero or more strings each containing a set of
rights the identifier can be granted in the mailbox. Rights
mentioned in the same string are tied together. The server MUST
either grant all tied rights to the identifier in the mailbox or
grant none. Section 2.1.1 details additional server requirements
related to handling of the virtual "d" and "c" rights.
The same right MUST NOT be listed more than once in the LISTRIGHTS
command.
3.8. MYRIGHTS Response
Data: mailbox name
rights
The MYRIGHTS response occurs as a result of a MYRIGHTS command. The
first string is the mailbox name for which these rights apply. The
second string is the set of rights that the client has.
Section 2.1.1 details additional server requirements related to
handling of the virtual "d" and "c" rights.
4. Rights Required to Perform Different IMAP4rev1 Commands
Before executing a command, an ACL-compliant server MUST check which
rights are required to perform it. This section groups command by
functions they perform and list the rights required. It also gives
the detailed description of any special processing required.
For the purpose of this section the UID counterpart of a command is
considered to be the same command, e.g., both UID COPY and COPY
commands require the same set of rights.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
The table below summarizes different rights or their combinations
that are required in order to perform different IMAP operations. As
it is not always possible to express complex right checking and
interactions, the description after the table should be used as the
primary reference.
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|Operations\Rights | l | r | s | w | i | k | x | t | e | a |Any|Non|
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| commands in authenticated state |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| LIST | + | | | | | | | | | | | |
| SUBSCRIBE | * | | | | | | | | | | | * |
| UNSUBSCRIBE | | | | | | | | | | | | + |
| LSUB | * | | | | | | | | | | | * |
|CREATE (for parent)| | | | | | + | | | | | | |
| DELETE | | ? | | | | | + | ? | ? | | | |
| RENAME | | | | | | + | + | | | | | |
| SELECT/EXAMINE | | + | | | | | | | | | | |
| STATUS | | + | | | | | | | | | | |
| SETACL/DELETEACL | | | | | | | | | | + | | |
| GETACL/LISTRIGHTS | | | | | | | | | | + | | |
| MYRIGHTS | | | | | | | | | | | + | |
| APPEND | | | ? | ? | + | | | ? | | | | |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| commands in selected state |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| COPY | | | ? | ? | + | | | ? | | | | |
| EXPUNGE | | | | | | | | | + | | | |
| CLOSE | | | | | | | | | ? | | | |
| FETCH | | | ? | | | | | | | | | |
| STORE flags | | | ? | ? | | | | ? | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Note: for all commands in the selected state, the "r" is implied,
because it is required to SELECT/EXAMINE a mailbox. Servers are not
required to check presence of the "r" right once a mailbox is
successfully selected.
Legend:
+ - The right is required
* - Only one of the rights marked with * is required
(see description below)
? - The right is OPTIONAL (see description below)
"Any" - at least one of the "l", "r", "i", "k", "x", "a" rights is
required
"Non" - No rights required to perform the command
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
Listing and subscribing/unsubscribing mailboxes:
LIST - "l" right is required. However, unlike other commands
(e.g., SELECT) the server MUST NOT return a NO response if it
can't list a mailbox.
Note that if the user has "l" right to a mailbox "A/B", but not to
its parent mailbox "A", the LIST command should behave as if the
mailbox "A" doesn't exist, for example:
C: A777 LIST "" *
S: * LIST (\NoInferiors) "/" "A/B"
S: * LIST () "/" "C"
S: * LIST (\NoInferiors) "/" "C/D"
S: A777 OK LIST completed
SUBSCRIBE - "l" right is required only if the server checks for
mailbox existence when performing SUBSCRIBE.
UNSUBSCRIBE - no rights required to perform this operation.
LSUB - "l" right is required only if the server checks for mailbox
existence when performing SUBSCRIBE. However, unlike other
commands (e.g., SELECT) the server MUST NOT return a NO response
if it can't list a subscribed mailbox.
Mailbox management:
CREATE - "k" right on a nearest existing parent mailbox. When a
new mailbox is created, it SHOULD inherit the ACL from the parent
mailbox (if one exists) in the defined hierarchy.
DELETE - "x" right on the mailbox. Note that some servers don't
allow to delete a non-empty mailbox. If this is the case, the
user would also need "r", "e", and "t" rights, in order to open
the mailbox and empty it.
The DELETE command MUST delete the ACL associated with the deleted
mailbox.
RENAME - Moving a mailbox from one parent to another requires the
"x" right on the mailbox itself and the "k" right for the new
parent. For example, if the user wants to rename the mailbox
named "A/B/C" to "D/E", the user must have the "x" right for the
mailbox "A/B/C" and the "k" right for the mailbox "D".
The RENAME command SHOULD NOT change the ACLs on the renamed
mailbox and submailboxes.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
Copying or appending messages:
Before performing a COPY/APPEND command, the server MUST check if
the user has "i" right for the target mailbox. If the user
doesn't have "i" right, the operation fails. Otherwise for each
copied/appended message the server MUST check if the user has
"t" right - when the message has \Deleted flag set
"s" right - when the message has \Seen flag set
"w" right - for all other message flags.
Only when the user has a particular right are the corresponding
flags stored for the newly created message. The server MUST NOT
fail a COPY/APPEND if the user has no rights to set a particular
flag.
Example: C: A003 MYRIGHTS TargetMailbox
S: * MYRIGHTS TargetMailbox rwis
S: A003 OK Myrights complete
C: A004 FETCH 1:3 (FLAGS)
S: * 1 FETCH (FLAGS (\Draft \Deleted)
S: * 2 FETCH (FLAGS (\Answered)
S: * 3 FETCH (FLAGS ($Forwarded \Seen)
S: A004 OK Fetch Completed
C: A005 COPY 1:3 TargetMailbox
S: A005 OK Copy completed
C: A006 SELECT TargetMailbox
...
S: A006 Select Completed
Let's assume that the copied messages received message numbers
77:79.
C: A007 FETCH 77:79 (FLAGS)
S: * 77 FETCH (FLAGS (\Draft))
S: * 78 FETCH (FLAGS (\Answered))
S: * 79 FETCH (FLAGS ($Forwarded \Seen))
S: A007 OK Fetch Completed
\Deleted flag was lost on COPY, as the user has no "t" right in
the target mailbox.
If the MYRIGHTS command with the tag A003 would have returned:
S: * MYRIGHTS TargetMailbox rsti
the response from the FETCH with the tag A007 would have been:
C: A007 FETCH 77:79 (FLAGS)
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
S: * 77 FETCH (FLAGS (\Deleted))
S: * 78 FETCH (FLAGS ())
S: * 79 FETCH (FLAGS (\Seen))
S: A007 OK Fetch Completed
In the latter case, \Answered, $Forwarded, and \Draft flags were
lost on COPY, as the user has no "w" right in the target mailbox.
Expunging the selected mailbox:
EXPUNGE - "e" right on the selected mailbox.
CLOSE - "e" right on the selected mailbox. If the server is
unable to expunge the mailbox because the user doesn't have the
"e" right, the server MUST ignore the expunge request, close the
mailbox, and return the tagged OK response.
Fetch information about a mailbox and its messages:
SELECT/EXAMINE/STATUS - "r" right on the mailbox.
FETCH - A FETCH request that implies setting \Seen flag MUST NOT
set it, if the current user doesn't have "s" right.
Changing flags:
STORE - the server MUST check if the user has
"t" right - when the user modifies \Deleted flag
"s" right - when the user modifies \Seen flag
"w" right - for all other message flags.
STORE operation SHOULD NOT fail if the user has rights to modify
at least one flag specified in the STORE, as the tagged NO
response to a STORE command is not handled very well by deployed
clients.
Changing ACLs:
SETACL/DELETEACL - "a" right on the mailbox.
Reading ACLs:
GETACL - "a" right on the mailbox.
MYRIGHTS - any of the following rights is required to perform the
operation: "l", "r", "i", "k", "x", "a".
LISTRIGHTS - "a" right on the mailbox.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
5. Other Considerations
5.1. Additional Requirements and Implementation Notes
5.1.1. Servers
This document defines an additional capability that is used to
announce the list of extra rights (excluding the ones defined in RFC
2086) supported by the server. The set of rights MUST include "t",
"e", "x", and "k". Note that the extra rights can appear in any
order.
Example: C: 1 capability
S: * CAPABILITY IMAP4REV1 STARTTLS LITERAL+
ACL RIGHTS=texk
S: 1 OK completed
Any server implementing an ACL extension MUST accurately reflect the
current user's rights in FLAGS and PERMANENTFLAGS responses.
Example: C: A142 SELECT INBOX
S: * 172 EXISTS
S: * 1 RECENT
S: * OK [UNSEEN 12] Message 12 is first unseen
S: * OK [UIDVALIDITY 3857529045] UIDs valid
S: * OK [UIDNEXT 4392] Predicted next UID
S: * FLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Deleted \Seen \Draft)
S: * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (\Seen \Answered \Flagged \*)] L
S: A142 OK [READ-WRITE] SELECT completed
C: A143 MYRIGHTS INBOX
S: * MYRIGHTS INBOX lrwis
S: A143 OK completed
Note that in order to get better performance the client MAY pipeline
SELECT and MYRIGHTS commands:
C: A142 SELECT INBOX
C: A143 MYRIGHTS INBOX
S: * 172 EXISTS
S: * 1 RECENT
S: * OK [UNSEEN 12] Message 12 is first unseen
S: * OK [UIDVALIDITY 3857529045] UIDs valid
S: * OK [UIDNEXT 4392] Predicted next UID
S: * FLAGS (\Answered \Flagged \Deleted \Seen \Draft)
S: * OK [PERMANENTFLAGS (\Seen \Answered \Flagged \*)] L
S: A142 OK [READ-WRITE] SELECT completed
S: * MYRIGHTS INBOX lrwis
S: A143 OK completed
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
Servers MAY cache the rights a user has on a mailbox when the mailbox
is selected, so that if a client's rights on a mailbox are changed
with SETACL or DELETEACL, commands specific to the selected state
(e.g., STORE, EXPUNGE) might not reflect the changed rights until the
mailbox is re-selected. If the server checks the rights on each
command, then it SHOULD send FLAGS and PERMANENTFLAGS responses if
they have changed. If such server detects that the user no longer
has read access to the mailbox, it MAY send an untagged BYE response
and close connection. It MAY also refuse to execute all commands
specific to the selected state until the mailbox is closed; however,
server implementors should note that most clients don't handle NO
responses very well.
An ACL server MAY modify one or more ACLs for one or more identifiers
as a side effect of modifying the ACL specified in a
SETACL/DELETEACL. If the server does that, it MUST send untagged ACL
response(s) to notify the client about the changes made.
An ACL server implementation MUST treat received ACL modification
commands as a possible ambiguity with respect to subsequent commands
affected by the ACL, as described in Section 5.5 of [IMAP4]. Hence a
pipeline SETACL + MYRIGHTS is an ambiguity with respect to the
server, meaning that the server must execute the SETACL command to
completion before the MYRIGHTS. However, clients are permitted to
send such a pipeline.
5.1.2. Clients
The following requirement is put on clients in order to allow for
future extensibility. A client implementation that allows a user to
read and update ACLs MUST preserve unrecognized rights that it
doesn't allow the user to change. That is, if the client
1) can read ACLs
and
2) can update ACLs
but
3) doesn't allow the user to change the rights the client doesn't
recognize, then it MUST preserve unrecognized rights.
Otherwise the client could risk unintentionally removing permissions
it doesn't understand.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
5.2. Mapping of ACL Rights to READ-WRITE and READ-ONLY Response Codes
A particular ACL server implementation MAY allow "shared multiuser
access" to some mailboxes. "Shared multiuser access" to a mailbox
means that multiple different users are able to access the same
mailbox, if they have proper access rights. "Shared multiuser
access" to the mailbox doesn't mean that the ACL for the mailbox is
currently set to allow access by multiple users. Let's denote a
"shared multiuser write access" as a "shared multiuser access" when a
user can be granted flag modification rights (any of "w", "s", or
"t").
Section 4 describes which rights are required for modifying different
flags.
If the ACL server implements some flags as shared for a mailbox
(i.e., the ACL for the mailbox MAY be set up so that changes to those
flags are visible to another user), let's call the set of rights
associated with these flags (as described in Section 4) for that
mailbox collectively as "shared flag rights". Note that the "shared
flag rights" set MAY be different for different mailboxes.
If the server doesn't support "shared multiuser write access" to a
mailbox or doesn't implement shared flags on the mailbox, "shared
flag rights" for the mailbox is defined to be the empty set.
Example 1: Mailbox "banan" allows "shared multiuser write access" and
implements flags \Deleted, \Answered, and $MDNSent as
shared flags. "Shared flag rights" for the mailbox "banan"
is a set containing flags "t" (because system flag
\Deleted requires "t" right) and "w" (because both
\Answered and $MDNSent require "w" right).
Example 2: Mailbox "apple" allows "shared multiuser write access" and
implements \Seen system flag as shared flag. "Shared flag
rights" for the mailbox "apple" contains "s" right
because system flag \Seen requires "s" right.
Example 3: Mailbox "pear" allows "shared multiuser write access" and
implements flags \Seen, \Draft as shared flags. "Shared
flag rights" for the mailbox "apple" is a set containing
flags "s" (because system flag \Seen requires "s" right)
and "w" (because system flag \Draft requires "w" right).
The server MUST include a READ-ONLY response code in the tagged OK
response to a SELECT command if none of the following rights is
granted to the current user:
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
"i", "e", and "shared flag rights"(***).
The server SHOULD include a READ-WRITE response code in the tagged OK
response if at least one of the "i", "e", or "shared flag
rights"(***) is granted to the current user.
(***) Note that a future extension to this document can extend the
list of rights that causes the server to return the READ-WRITE
response code.
Example 1 (continued): The user that has "lrs" rights for the mailbox
"banan". The server returns READ-ONLY
response code on SELECT, as none of "iewt"
rights is granted to the user.
Example 2 (continued): The user that has "rit" rights for the mailbox
"apple". The server returns READ-WRITE
response code on SELECT, as the user has "i"
right.
Example 3 (continued): The user that has "rset" rights for the
mailbox "pear". The server returns READ-WRITE
response code on SELECT, as the user has "e"
and "s" rights.
6. Security Considerations
An implementation MUST make sure the ACL commands themselves do not
give information about mailboxes with appropriately restricted ACLs.
For example, when a user agent executes a GETACL command on a mailbox
that the user has no permission to LIST, the server would respond to
that request with the same error that would be used if the mailbox
did not exist, thus revealing no existence information, much less the
mailbox's ACL.
IMAP clients implementing ACL that are able to modify ACLs SHOULD
warn a user that wants to give full access (or even just the "a"
right) to the special identifier "anyone".
This document relies on [SASLprep] to describe steps required to
perform identifier canonicalization (preparation). The preparation
algorithm in SASLprep was specifically designed such that its output
is canonical, and it is well-formed. However, due to an anomaly
[PR29] in the specification of Unicode normalization, canonical
equivalence is not guaranteed for a select few character sequences.
Identifiers prepared with SASLprep can be stored and returned by an
ACL server. The anomaly affects ACL manipulation and evaluation of
identifiers containing the selected character sequences. These
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
sequences, however, do not appear in well-formed text. In order to
address this problem, an ACL server MAY reject identifiers containing
sequences described in [PR29] by sending the tagged BAD response.
This is in addition to the requirement to reject identifiers that
fail SASLprep preparation as described in Section 3.
Other security considerations described in [IMAP4] are relevant to
this document. In particular, ACL information is sent in the clear
over the network unless confidentiality protection is negotiated.
This can be accomplished either by the use of STARTTLS, negotiated
privacy protection in the AUTHENTICATE command, or some other
protection mechanism.
7. Formal Syntax
Formal syntax is defined using ABNF [ABNF], extending the ABNF rules
in Section 9 of [IMAP4]. Elements not defined here can be found in
[ABNF] and [IMAP4].
Except as noted otherwise, all alphabetic characters are case
insensitive. The use of uppercase or lowercase characters to define
token strings is for editorial clarity only. Implementations MUST
accept these strings in a case-insensitive fashion.
LOWER-ALPHA = %x61-7A ;; a-z
acl-data = "ACL" SP mailbox *(SP identifier SP
rights)
capability =/ rights-capa
;;capability is defined in [IMAP4]
command-auth =/ setacl / deleteacl / getacl /
listrights / myrights
;;command-auth is defined in [IMAP4]
deleteacl = "DELETEACL" SP mailbox SP identifier
getacl = "GETACL" SP mailbox
identifier = astring
listrights = "LISTRIGHTS" SP mailbox SP identifier
listrights-data = "LISTRIGHTS" SP mailbox SP identifier
SP rights *(SP rights)
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
mailbox-data =/ acl-data / listrights-data / myrights-data
;;mailbox-data is defined in [IMAP4]
mod-rights = astring
;; +rights to add, -rights to remove
;; rights to replace
myrights = "MYRIGHTS" SP mailbox
myrights-data = "MYRIGHTS" SP mailbox SP rights
new-rights = 1*LOWER-ALPHA
;; MUST include "t", "e", "x", and "k".
;; MUST NOT include standard rights listed
;; in section 2.2
rights = astring
;; only lowercase ASCII letters and digits
;; are allowed.
rights-capa = "RIGHTS=" new-rights
;; RIGHTS=... capability
setacl = "SETACL" SP mailbox SP identifier
SP mod-rights
8. IANA Considerations
IMAP4 capabilities are registered by publishing a standards-track or
IESG-approved experimental RFC. The registry is currently located
at:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-capabilities
This document defines the RIGHTS= IMAP capability. IANA has added
this capability to the registry.
9. Internationalization Considerations
Section 3 states requirements on servers regarding
internationalization of identifiers.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
Appendix A. Changes since RFC 2086
1. Changed the charset of "identifier" from US-ASCII to UTF-8.
2. Specified that mailbox deletion is controlled by the "x" right
and EXPUNGE is controlled by the "e" right.
3. Added the "t" right that controls STORE \Deleted. Redefined the
"d" right to be a macro for "e", "t", and possibly "x".
4. Added the "k" right that controls CREATE. Redefined the "c"
right to be a macro for "k" and possibly "x".
5. Specified that the "a" right also controls DELETEACL.
6. Specified that the "r" right also controls STATUS.
7. Removed the requirement to check the "r" right for CHECK, SEARCH
and FETCH, as this is required for SELECT/EXAMINE to be
successful.
8. LISTRIGHTS requires the "a" right on the mailbox (same as
SETACL).
9. Deleted "PARTIAL", this is a deprecated feature of RFC 1730.
10. Specified that the "w" right controls setting flags other than
\Seen and \Deleted on APPEND. Also specified that the "s" right
controls the \Seen flag and that the "t" right controls the
\Deleted flag.
11. Specified that SUBSCRIBE is NOT allowed with the "r" right.
12. Specified that the "l" right controls SUBSCRIBE.
13. GETACL is NOT allowed with the "r" right, even though there are
several implementations that allows that. If a user only has
"r" right, GETACL can disclose information about identifiers
existing on the mail system.
14. Clarified that RENAME requires the "k" right for the new parent
and the "x" right for the old name.
15. Added new section that describes which rights are required
and/or checked when performing various IMAP commands.
16. Added mail client security considerations when dealing with
special identifier "anyone".
17. Clarified that negative rights are not the same as DELETEACL.
18. Added "Compatibility with RFC 2086" section.
19. Added section about mapping of ACL rights to READ-WRITE and
READ-ONLY response codes.
20. Changed BNF to ABNF.
21. Added "Implementation Notes" section.
22. Updated "References" section.
23. Added more examples.
24. Clarified when the virtual "c" and "d" rights are returned in
ACL, MYRIGHTS, and LISTRIGHTS responses.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
Appendix B. Compatibility with RFC 2086
This non-normative section gives guidelines as to how an existing RFC
2086 server implementation may be updated to comply with this
document.
This document splits the "d" right into several new different rights:
"t", "e", and possibly "x" (see Section 2.1.1 for more details). The
"d" right remains for backward-compatibility, but it is a virtual
right. There are two approaches for RFC 2086 server implementors to
handle the "d" right and the new rights that have replaced it:
a. Tie "t", "e" (and possibly "x) together - almost no changes.
b. Implement separate "x", "t" and "e". Return the "d" right in a
MYRIGHTS response or an ACL response containing ACL information
when any of the "t", "e" (and "x") is granted.
In a similar manner this document splits the "c" right into several
new different rights: "k" and possibly "x" (see Section 2.1.1 for
more details). The "c" right remains for backwards-compatibility but
it is a virtual right. Again, RFC 2086 server implementors can
choose to tie rights or to implement separate rights, as described
above.
Also check Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2, as well as Appendix A, to see
other changes required. Server implementors should check which
rights are required to invoke different IMAP4 commands as described
in Section 4.
Appendix C. Known Deficiencies
This specification has some known deficiencies including:
1. This is inadequate to provide complete read-write access to
mailboxes protected by Unix-style rights bits because there is no
equivalent to "chown" and "chgrp" commands nor is there a good
way to discover such limitations are present.
2. Because this extension leaves the specific semantics of how
rights are combined by the server as implementation defined, the
ability to build a user-friendly interface is limited.
3. Users, groups, and special identifiers (e.g., anyone) exist in
the same namespace.
The work-in-progress "ACL2" extension is intended to redesign this
extension to address these deficiencies without the constraint of
backward-compatibility and may eventually supercede this facility.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
However, RFC 2086 is deployed in multiple implementations so this
intermediate step, which fixes the straightforward deficiencies in a
backward-compatible fashion, is considered worthwhile.
Appendix D. Acknowledgements
This document is a revision of RFC 2086 written by John G. Myers.
Editor appreciates comments received from Mark Crispin, Chris Newman,
Cyrus Daboo, John G. Myers, Dave Cridland, Ken Murchison, Steve Hole,
Vladimir Butenko, Larry Greenfield, Robert Siemborski, Harrie
Hazewinkel, Philip Guenther, Brian Candler, Curtis King, Lyndon
Nerenberg, Lisa Dusseault, Arnt Gulbrandsen, and other participants
of the IMAPEXT working group.
Normative References
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[ABNF] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.
[IMAP4] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION
4rev1", RFC 3501, March 2003.
[UTF-8] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[Stringprep] Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of
Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")", RFC 3454,
December 2002.
[SASLprep] Zeilenga, K., "SASLprep: Stringprep Profile for User
Names and Passwords", RFC 4013, February 2005.
Informative References
[RFC2086] Myers, J., "IMAP4 ACL extension", RFC 2086,
January 1997.
[PR29] "Public Review Issue #29: Normalization Issue",
February 2004,
<http://www.unicode.org/review/pr-29.html>.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
Author's Address
Alexey Melnikov
Isode Ltd.
5 Castle Business Village
36 Station Road
Hampton, Middlesex TW12 2BX
GB
EMail: alexey.melnikov@isode.com
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 4314 IMAP ACL December 2005
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
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
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
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
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
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-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Melnikov Standards Track [Page 27]