Network Working Group J. Myers Request for Comments: 2087 Carnegie Mellon Category: Standards Track January 1997
IMAP4 QUOTA 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.
1. Abstract
The QUOTA extension of the Internet Message access Protocol [IMAP4] permits administrative limits on resource usage (quotas) to be manipulated through the IMAP protocol.
In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and server respectively.
3. Introduction and Overview
The QUOTA extension is present in any IMAP4 implementation which returns "QUOTA" as one of the supported capabilities to the CAPABILITY command.
An IMAP4 server which supports the QUOTA capability may support limits on any number of resources. Each resource has an atom name and an implementation-defined interpretation which evaluates to an integer. Examples of such resources are:
Name Interpretation
STORAGE Sum of messages' RFC822.SIZE, in units of 1024 octets MESSAGE Number of messages
Each mailbox has zero or more implementation-defined named "quota roots". Each quota root has zero or more resource limits. All mailboxes that share the same named quota root share the resource limits of the quota root.
Quota root names do not necessarily have to match the names of existing mailboxes.
4. Commands
4.1. SETQUOTA Command
Arguments: quota root list of resource limits
Data: untagged responses: QUOTA
Result: OK - setquota completed NO - setquota error: can't set that data BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The SETQUOTA command takes the name of a mailbox quota root and a list of resource limits. The resource limits for the named quota root are changed to be the specified limits. Any previous resource limits for the named quota root are discarded.
If the named quota root did not previously exist, an implementation may optionally create it and change the quota roots for any number of existing mailboxes in an implementation-defined manner.
Result: OK - getquota completed NO - getquota error: no such mailbox, permission denied BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid
The GETQUOTAROOT command takes the name of a mailbox and returns the list of quota roots for the mailbox in an untagged QUOTAROOT response. For each listed quota root, it also returns the quota root's resource usage and limits in an untagged QUOTA response.
Data: quota root name list of resource names, usages, and limits
This response occurs as a result of a GETQUOTA or GETQUOTAROOT command. The first string is the name of the quota root for which this quota applies.
The name is followed by a S-eXPression format list of the resource usage and limits of the quota root. The list contains zero or more triplets. Each triplet conatins a resource name, the current usage of the resource, and the resource limit.
Resources not named in the list are not limited in the quota root. Thus, an empty list means there are no administrative resource limits in the quota root.
Example: S: * QUOTA "" (STORAGE 10 512)
5.2. QUOTAROOT Response
Data: mailbox name zero or more quota root names
This response occurs as a result of a GETQUOTAROOT command. The first string is the mailbox and the remaining strings are the names of the quota roots for the mailbox.
The following syntax specification uses the augmented Backus-Naur Form (BNF) notation as specified in RFC822 with one exception; the delimiter used with the "#" construct is a single space (SP) and not one or more commas.
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.
[IMAP4] Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version 4", RFC1730, University of Washington, December 1994.
[RFC-822] Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", STD 11, RFC822.
8. Security Considerations
Implementors should be careful to make sure the implementation of these commands does not violate the site's security policy. The resource usage of other users is likely to be considered confidential information and should not be divulged to unauthorized persons.
9. Author's Address
John G. Myers Carnegie-Mellon University 5000 Forbes Ave. Pittsburgh PA, 15213-3890
