Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Leiba, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8457 Huawei Technologies
Category: Standards Track September 2018
ISSN: 2070-1721
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Leiba, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8457 Huawei Technologies
Category: Standards Track September 2018
ISSN: 2070-1721
IMAP "$Important" Keyword and "\Important" Special-Use Attribute
IMAP“$Important”关键字和“\Important”特殊用途属性
Abstract
摘要
RFC 6154 created an IMAP special-use LIST extension and defined an initial set of attributes. This document defines a new attribute, "\Important", and establishes a new IANA registry for IMAP folder attributes, which include the attributes defined in RFCs 5258, 3501, and 6154. This document also defines a new IMAP keyword, "$Important", and registers it in the registry defined in RFC 5788.
RFC 6154创建了一个IMAP特殊用途列表扩展，并定义了一组初始属性。本文档定义了一个新属性“\Important”，并为IMAP文件夹属性建立了一个新的IANA注册表，其中包括RFCs 5258、3501和6154中定义的属性。本文档还定义了一个新的IMAP关键字“$Important”，并将其注册到RFC 5788中定义的注册表中。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 7841第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8457.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8457.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2018 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Definition of the "$Important" Message Keyword . . . . . . . 3
3. Definition of the 'Important' Mailbox Attribute . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.1. Example of a LIST Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.2. Examples of Creating a New Mailbox Using "\Important" . . 4
4. Implementation Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Registration of the "$Important" Keyword . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Creation of the IMAP Mailbox Name Attributes Registry . . . 7
6.2.1. Instructions to the Designated Expert . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.3. Initial Entries for the IMAP Mailbox Name Attributes
Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Definition of the "$Important" Message Keyword . . . . . . . 3
3. Definition of the 'Important' Mailbox Attribute . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.1. Example of a LIST Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.2. Examples of Creating a New Mailbox Using "\Important" . . 4
4. Implementation Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Registration of the "$Important" Keyword . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Creation of the IMAP Mailbox Name Attributes Registry . . . 7
6.2.1. Instructions to the Designated Expert . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.3. Initial Entries for the IMAP Mailbox Name Attributes
Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) specification [RFC3501] defines the use of message keywords, and an "IMAP Keywords" registry is created in [RFC5788]. [RFC6154] defines an extension to the IMAP LIST command for special-use mailboxes. The extension allows servers to provide extra information (attributes) about the purpose of a mailbox and defines an initial set of special-use attributes.
互联网消息访问协议（IMAP）规范[RFC3501]定义了消息关键字的使用，并在[RFC5788]中创建了“IMAP关键字”注册表。[RFC6154]为特殊用途邮箱定义IMAP LIST命令的扩展。扩展允许服务器提供有关邮箱用途的额外信息（属性），并定义一组初始的特殊用途属性。
This document does the following:
本文件的作用如下：
o defines a new message keyword, "$Important", to apply to messages that are considered important for the user by some externally defined criteria;
o 定义一个新的消息关键字“$Important”，以应用于某些外部定义的标准认为对用户重要的消息；
o registers the "$Important" keyword in the "IMAP Keywords" registry;
o 在“IMAP关键字”注册表中注册“$Important”关键字；
o defines a new special-use attribute, "\Important", to designate a mailbox that will hold messages that are considered important for the user by some externally defined criteria; and
o 定义一个新的特殊用途属性“\Important”，以指定一个邮箱，该邮箱将包含一些外部定义的标准认为对用户重要的邮件；和
o creates a registry for IMAP mailbox attributes and registers the new attribute and those defined in [RFC5258], [RFC3501], and [RFC6154].
o 为IMAP邮箱属性创建注册表，并注册新属性以及[RFC5258]、[RFC3501]和[RFC6154]中定义的属性。
In the examples used in this document, "C:" indicates lines sent by a client that is connected to a server, and "S:" indicates lines sent by the server to the client.
在本文档中使用的示例中，“C:”表示连接到服务器的客户端发送的行，“S:”表示服务器发送到客户端的行。
The "$Important" keyword is a signal that a message is likely important to the user. The keyword is generally expected to be set automatically by the system based on available signals (such as who the message is from, who else the message is addressed to, evaluation of the subject or content, or other heuristics). While the keyword also can be set by the user, that is not expected to be the primary usage.
“$Important”关键字表示消息可能对用户很重要。通常期望系统根据可用信号（例如消息来自谁、消息发送给谁、主题或内容的评估或其他启发式）自动设置关键字。虽然关键字也可以由用户设置，但这并不是主要用途。
This is distinct from the "\Flagged" system flag in two ways:
这在两个方面不同于“\Flagged”系统标志：
1. "$Important" carries a meaning of general importance, as opposed to follow-up or urgency. It is meant to be used for a form of triage, with "\Flagged" remaining as a designation of special attention, need for follow-up, or time sensitivity. In particular, the sense of "$Important" is that other messages that are "like this one" according to some server-applied heuristics will also be considered "$Important".
1. “$重要”具有普遍重要性的含义，而不是后续行动或紧急情况。它用于一种分诊形式，保留“\标记”作为特别注意、后续需要或时间敏感性的指示。特别是，“$Important”的含义是，根据某些服务器应用的启发式，“类似于此”的其他消息也将被视为“$Important”。
2. The setting of "$Important" is expected to be based at least partly on heuristics (generally set automatically by the server), whereas "\Flagged" is only intended to be set by the user with some sort of "flag this message" or "put a star on this message" interface.
2. “$Important”的设置应至少部分基于启发式（通常由服务器自动设置），而“\Flagged”仅由用户通过某种形式的“标记此消息”或“在此消息上加星号”界面进行设置。
The "\Important" mailbox attribute is a signal that the mailbox contains messages that are likely important to the user. In an implementation that also supports the "$Important" keyword, this special use is likely to represent a virtual mailbox collecting messages (from other mailboxes) that are marked with the "$Important" keyword. In other implementations, the system might automatically put messages there based on the same sorts of heuristics that are noted for the "$Important" keyword (see Section 2). The distinctions between "\Important" and "\Flagged" for mailboxes are similar to those between "$Important" and "\Flagged" for messages.
“\Important”邮箱属性表示邮箱包含可能对用户重要的邮件。在还支持“$Important”关键字的实现中，此特殊用法可能表示一个虚拟邮箱，该邮箱收集（来自其他邮箱）标记为“$Important”关键字的邮件。在其他实现中，系统可能会根据“$Important”关键字的相同启发式自动将消息放在那里（参见第2节）。邮箱的“\Important”和“\Flagged”之间的区别与邮件的“$Important”和“\Flagged”之间的区别类似。
The following syntax specification adds to the one in Section 6 of [RFC6154] using Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) as described in [RFC5234]. Be sure to see the ABNF notes at the beginning of Section 9 of [RFC3501].
以下语法规范使用[RFC5234]中所述的增广巴科斯瑙形式（ABNF）添加到[RFC6154]第6节中的语法规范中。请务必参阅[RFC3501]第9节开头的ABNF注释。
use-attr =/ "\Important"
使用attr=/“\Important”
In the following example, the mailbox called "Important Messages" is the one designated with the "\Important" attribute.
在以下示例中，名为“重要邮件”的邮箱是用“\Important”属性指定的邮箱。
C: t1 LIST "" "Imp*"
S: * LIST (\HasNoChildren \Important) "/" "Important Messages"
S: * LIST (\HasNoChildren) "/" "Imported Wine"
S: t1 OK Success
C: t1 LIST "" "Imp*"
S: * LIST (\HasNoChildren \Important) "/" "Important Messages"
S: * LIST (\HasNoChildren) "/" "Imported Wine"
S: t1 OK Success
In the following example, the mailbox called "Important Messages" is created with the "\Important" attribute on a server that advertises the "CREATE-SPECIAL-USE" capability string.
在以下示例中，名为“重要邮件”的邮箱是在播发“CREATE-SPECIAL-USE”功能字符串的服务器上使用“\Important”属性创建的。
C: t1 CREATE "Important Messages" (USE (\Important))
S: t1 OK Mailbox created
C: t1 CREATE "Important Messages" (USE (\Important))
S: t1 OK Mailbox created
The following example is similar to the previous one, but the server is not able to assign the "\Important" attribute to the new mailbox.
下面的示例与上一个示例类似，但服务器无法将“\Important”属性分配给新邮箱。
C: t1 CREATE "Important Messages" (USE (\Important))
S: t1 NO [USEATTR] An \Important mailbox already exists
C: t1 CREATE "Important Messages" (USE (\Important))
S: t1 NO [USEATTR] An \Important mailbox already exists
The following example is similar to the previous one, but the server does not support this extension.
下面的示例与前面的示例类似，但服务器不支持此扩展。
C: t1 CREATE "Important Messages" (USE (\Important))
S: t1 NO [USEATTR] Mailbox not created; unsupported use \Important
C: t1 CREATE "Important Messages" (USE (\Important))
S: t1 NO [USEATTR] Mailbox not created; unsupported use \Important
In both of the failure-mode examples, the "USEATTR" response code lets the client know that the problem is in the "USE" parameters. Note that the same response code is given in both cases, and the human-readable text is the only way to tell the difference. That text is not parsable by the client (it can only be logged and/or reported to the user).
在这两个故障模式示例中，“USEATTR”响应代码让客户机知道问题出在“USE”参数中。请注意，在这两种情况下都给出了相同的响应代码，人类可读的文本是区分差异的唯一方法。客户端无法解析该文本（只能将其记录和/或报告给用户）。
This section is non-normative and is intended to describe the intended (and current as of this publication) usage of "$Important" in contrast with "\Flagged" on a message.
本节是非规范性的，旨在描述“$Important”与消息上“\Flagged”的预期用法（以及本出版物当前的用法）。
On the server:
在服务器上：
o "\Flagged" is set or cleared in response to an explicit command from the client.
o “\Flagged”是响应客户端的显式命令而设置或清除的。
o "$Important" is set via a heuristic process performed by the server and usually involves analysis of header fields, what mailbox the message is filed in, perhaps message content, attachments, and such. It may then be set or cleared in response to an explicit command from the client, and the server may use that to adjust the heuristics in the future. It's also possible that the server will re-evaluate this and make a message "$Important" later if the user accesses the message frequently, for example.
o “$Important”是通过服务器执行的启发式过程设置的，通常包括对标题字段、邮件归档的邮箱、邮件内容、附件等的分析。然后，响应于来自客户端的显式命令，可以设置或清除它，并且服务器可以在将来使用该命令来调整试探法。例如，如果用户频繁访问消息，服务器也可能会重新评估该消息，并在稍后生成消息“$Important”。
On the client:
在客户机上：
o Typically, an icon such as a flag or a star (or an indication, such as red or bold text) is associated with "\Flagged", and the UI provides a way for the user to turn that icon or indication on or off. Manipulation of this results in a command to the server.
o 通常，诸如旗帜或星星（或指示，如红色或粗体文本）之类的图标与“\Flagged”关联，用户界面为用户提供了打开或关闭该图标或指示的方法。对此的操作将导致向服务器发送命令。
o Typically, a lesser indication is used for "$Important". The client might or might not provide the user with a way to manipulate it. If it does, manipulation results in a command to the server.
o 通常，较小的指示用于“$Important”。客户端可能会也可能不会为用户提供一种操作它的方法。如果确实如此，操作将导致向服务器发送命令。
The security considerations in Section 7 of [RFC6154] apply equally to this extension, in particular, "Conveying special-use information to a client exposes a small bit of extra information that could be of value to an attacker." Moreover, identifying important messages or a place where important messages are kept could give an attacker a strategic starting point. If the algorithm by which messages are determined to be important is well known, still more information is exposed -- perhaps, for example, there is an implication that the senders of these messages are particularly significant to the mailbox owner, and perhaps that is information that should not be made public.
[RFC6154]第7节中的安全注意事项同样适用于此扩展，特别是“向客户端传送特殊用途信息会暴露一小部分可能对攻击者有价值的额外信息。”此外，识别重要消息或保存重要消息的位置可以为攻击者提供战略起点。如果确定邮件重要的算法是众所周知的，那么还会暴露更多的信息——例如，可能暗示这些邮件的发件人对邮箱所有者特别重要，而这可能是不应该公开的信息。
As noted in RFC 6154, it is wise to protect the IMAP channel from passive eavesdropping and to defend against unauthorized discernment of the identity of a user's "\Important" mailbox or of a user's "$Important" messages. See Section 11 of [RFC3501] for security considerations about using the IMAP STARTTLS command to protect the IMAP channel.
如RFC 6154所述，明智的做法是保护IMAP通道免受被动窃听，并防止未经授权识别用户的“\Important”邮箱或用户的“$Important”消息的身份。有关使用IMAP STARTTLS命令保护IMAP通道的安全注意事项，请参阅[RFC3501]的第11节。
IANA has completed three actions, which are specified in the sections below:
IANA已完成三项行动，具体如下：
1. registration of the "$Important" keyword;
1. 注册“$Important”关键字；
2. creation of a new "IMAP Mailbox Name Attributes" registry; and
2. 创建新的“IMAP邮箱名称属性”注册表；和
3. registration of initial entries in the "IMAP Mailbox Name Attributes" registry.
3. 在“IMAP邮箱名称属性”注册表中注册初始项。
IANA has registered the "$Important" keyword in the "IMAP Keywords" registry, as follows, using the template in [RFC5788].
IANA使用[RFC5788]中的模板在“IMAP关键字”注册表中注册了“$Important”关键字，如下所示。
IMAP keyword name: $Important
IMAP关键字名称：$Important
Purpose (description): The "$Important" keyword is a signal that a message is likely important to the user.
目的（说明）“$Important”关键字表示消息可能对用户很重要。
Private or Shared on a server: PRIVATE
服务器上的专用或共享：专用
Is it an advisory keyword or may it cause an automatic action: Advisory (but see the reference for details).
它是一个advisory关键字还是可能导致自动操作：advisory（但有关详细信息，请参阅参考资料）。
When/by whom the keyword is set/cleared: The keyword can be set by the user, or automatically by the system based on available signals (such as who the message is from, who else the message is addressed to, evaluation of the subject or content, or other heuristics).
设置/清除关键字的时间/人：可由用户设置关键字，或由系统根据可用信号自动设置关键字（如消息来源、消息收件人、主题或内容评估或其他启发式）。
Related keywords: None (see the reference for the related mailbox name attribute).
相关关键字：无（请参阅相关邮箱名称属性的参考）。
Related IMAP capabilities: None.
相关IMAP功能：无。
Security considerations: See Section 5 of RFC 8457.
安全注意事项：见RFC 8457第5节。
Published specification: RFC 8457
已发布规范：RFC 8457
Person & email address to contact for further information:
IETF Applications and Real-Time Area <art@ietf.org>
Person & email address to contact for further information:
IETF Applications and Real-Time Area <art@ietf.org>
Intended usage: COMMON
预期用途：普通
Owner/Change controller: IESG
所有者/变更控制员：IESG
Note: None.
注：无。
IANA has created a new registry in the group "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP)". It is called "IMAP Mailbox Name Attributes", and it has two references: "RFC 3501, Section 7.2.2", and "RFC 8457, Section 6". This registry will be shared with the JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) for Mail [JMAP-MAIL].
IANA在组“Internet消息访问协议（IMAP）”中创建了一个新的注册表。它被称为“IMAP邮箱名称属性”，有两个参考：“RFC 3501，第7.2.2节”和“RFC 8457，第6节”。此注册表将与JSON元应用程序协议（JMAP）for Mail[JMAP-Mail]共享。
The registry entries contain the following fields:
注册表项包含以下字段：
1. Attribute Name 2. Description 3. Reference 4. Usage Notes
1. 属性名称2。说明3。参考文献4。使用说明
IANA keeps this list in alphabetical order by Attribute Name, which is registered without the initial backslash ("\"). The names are generally registered with initial capital letters but are treated as case-insensitive US-ASCII strings.
IANA按属性名按字母顺序保存此列表，注册时不带初始反斜杠（\）。这些名称通常以大写字母开头，但被视为不区分大小写的US-ASCII字符串。
The "Usage Notes" field is free-form US-ASCII text that will normally be empty (and is empty if it's not specified in the registration request). It is intended to hold things such as "not used by JMAP" and "JMAP only". The field is for human use, and there is no need for a registry of strings that may appear here.
“使用说明”字段是自由格式的US-ASCII文本，通常为空（如果注册请求中未指定，则为空）。它用于保存“不被JMAP使用”和“仅限JMAP使用”等内容。该字段供人使用，不需要此处可能出现的字符串注册表。
The registration policy for the new registry is listed as "IETF Review" or "Expert Review" [RFC8126], and new registrations will be accepted in one of two ways:
新注册的注册政策被列为“IETF审查”或“专家审查”[RFC8126]，新注册将通过以下两种方式之一接受：
1. For registrations requested in an IETF consensus document, the registration policy will be IETF Review, and the request will be made in the IANA Considerations section of the document, which gives the requested values for each of the fields.
1. 对于IETF共识文件中要求的注册，注册政策将是IETF审查，并且将在文件的IANA注意事项部分提出请求，该部分给出了每个字段的请求值。
2. For other registrations, the policy will be Expert Review policy (see Section 6.2.1), and the request will be made by sending email to IANA asking for a new IMAP Mailbox Name Attribute and giving the requested values for each of the fields. While a
2. 对于其他注册，该政策将为专家评审政策（见第6.2.1节），请求将通过向IANA发送电子邮件，请求新的IMAP邮箱名称属性，并为每个字段提供请求的值。一会儿
formal specification is not required, the reference document should provide a description of the proposed attribute sufficient for building interoperable implementations. An Informational RFC (submitted, for example, through the IETF or Independent stream) is a fine way to publish a reference document (see also Section 6.2.1).
不需要正式规范，参考文档应提供对提议属性的描述，该描述足以构建可互操作的实现。信息RFC（例如，通过IETF或独立流提交）是发布参考文件的好方法（另见第6.2.1节）。
The expert reviewer, who will be designated by the IESG, is expected to provide only a general review of the requested registration, checking that the reference and description are adequate for understanding the intent of the registered attribute. Efforts should also be made to generalize the intent of an attribute so that multiple implementations with the same requirements may reuse existing attributes. Except for this check, this is intended to be very close to a first come first served policy, and the expert should not block serious registration requests with a reasonable reference. The reference may be to any form of documentation, including a web page, but consideration should be given to providing one that is expected to be long-lived and stable.
IESG指定的专家评审员仅对请求的注册进行一般评审，检查参考和描述是否足以理解注册属性的意图。还应努力概括属性的意图，以便具有相同需求的多个实现可以重用现有属性。除此之外，此检查旨在非常接近先到先得的政策，专家不应通过合理的参考阻止严重的注册请求。参考文件可以是任何形式的文件，包括网页，但应考虑提供预期长期稳定的文件。
The registry initially contains these entries:
注册表最初包含以下条目：
+===============+===================================+===========+
| Attribute | Description | Reference |
| Name | | |
+===============+===================================+===========+
| All | All messages | [RFC6154] |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Archive | Archived messages | [RFC6154] |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Drafts | Messages that are working drafts | [RFC6154] |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Flagged | Messages with the \Flagged flag | [RFC6154] |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| HasChildren | Has accessible child mailboxes | [RFC5258] | *
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| HasNoChildren | Has no accessible child mailboxes | [RFC5258] | *
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Important | Messages deemed important to user | RFC 8457 |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Junk | Messages identified as Spam/Junk | [RFC6154] |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Marked | Server has marked the mailbox as | [RFC3501] | *
| | "interesting" | |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| NoInferiors | No hierarchy under this name | [RFC3501] | *
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| NonExistent | The mailbox name doesn't actually | [RFC5258] | *
| | exist | |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Noselect | The mailbox is not selectable | [RFC3501] | *
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Remote | The mailbox exists on a remote | [RFC5258] | *
| | server | |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Sent | Sent mail | [RFC6154] |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Subscribed | The mailbox is subscribed to | [RFC5258] |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Trash | Messages the user has discarded | [RFC6154] |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Unmarked | No new messages since last select | [RFC3501] | *
+===============+===================================+===========+
+===============+===================================+===========+
| Attribute | Description | Reference |
| Name | | |
+===============+===================================+===========+
| All | All messages | [RFC6154] |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Archive | Archived messages | [RFC6154] |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Drafts | Messages that are working drafts | [RFC6154] |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Flagged | Messages with the \Flagged flag | [RFC6154] |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| HasChildren | Has accessible child mailboxes | [RFC5258] | *
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| HasNoChildren | Has no accessible child mailboxes | [RFC5258] | *
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Important | Messages deemed important to user | RFC 8457 |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Junk | Messages identified as Spam/Junk | [RFC6154] |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Marked | Server has marked the mailbox as | [RFC3501] | *
| | "interesting" | |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| NoInferiors | No hierarchy under this name | [RFC3501] | *
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| NonExistent | The mailbox name doesn't actually | [RFC5258] | *
| | exist | |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Noselect | The mailbox is not selectable | [RFC3501] | *
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Remote | The mailbox exists on a remote | [RFC5258] | *
| | server | |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Sent | Sent mail | [RFC6154] |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Subscribed | The mailbox is subscribed to | [RFC5258] |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Trash | Messages the user has discarded | [RFC6154] |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+-----------+
| Unmarked | No new messages since last select | [RFC3501] | *
+===============+===================================+===========+
The rows marked with "*" at the end have their Usage Notes field set to "not used by JMAP".
末尾标有“*”的行的用法说明字段设置为“未被JMAP使用”。
[RFC3501] Crispin, M., "INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION 4rev1", RFC 3501, DOI 10.17487/RFC3501, March 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3501>.
[RFC3501]Crispin，M.，“互联网消息访问协议-版本4rev1”，RFC 3501，DOI 10.17487/RFC3501，2003年3月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3501>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC5234]Crocker，D.，Ed.和P.Overell，“语法规范的扩充BNF:ABNF”，STD 68，RFC 5234，DOI 10.17487/RFC5234，2008年1月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC6154] Leiba, B. and J. Nicolson, "IMAP LIST Extension for Special-Use Mailboxes", RFC 6154, DOI 10.17487/RFC6154, March 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6154>.
[RFC6154]Leiba，B.和J.Nicolson，“特殊用途邮箱的IMAP列表扩展”，RFC 6154，DOI 10.17487/RFC6154，2011年3月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6154>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8126]Cotton，M.，Leiba，B.，和T.Narten，“在RFC中编写IANA考虑事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 8126，DOI 10.17487/RFC8126，2017年6月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[JMAP-MAIL] Jenkins, N. and C. Newman, "JMAP for Mail", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-jmap-mail-07, August 2018.
[JMAP-MAIL]Jenkins，N.和C.Newman，“邮件的JMAP”，正在进行的工作，草稿-ietf-JMAP-MAIL-072018年8月。
[RFC5258] Leiba, B. and A. Melnikov, "Internet Message Access Protocol version 4 - LIST Command Extensions", RFC 5258, DOI 10.17487/RFC5258, June 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5258>.
[RFC5258]Leiba，B.和A.Melnikov，“互联网消息访问协议第4版-列表命令扩展”，RFC 5258，DOI 10.17487/RFC5258，2008年6月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5258>.
[RFC5788] Melnikov, A. and D. Cridland, "IMAP4 Keyword Registry", RFC 5788, DOI 10.17487/RFC5788, March 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5788>.
[RFC5788]Melnikov，A.和D.Cridland，“IMAP4关键字注册表”，RFC 5788，DOI 10.17487/RFC5788，2010年3月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5788>.
Contributors
贡献者
The following author was an original contributor to this document in addition to the editor.
除了编辑之外，以下作者也是本文档的原始贡献者。
Eric "Iceman" Google Email: iceman@google.com
Eric“Iceman”谷歌邮箱：iceman@google.com
Author's Address
作者地址
Barry Leiba (editor) Huawei Technologies
巴里·雷巴（编辑）华为技术
Phone: +1 646 827 0648
Email: barryleiba@computer.org
URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
Phone: +1 646 827 0648
Email: barryleiba@computer.org
URI: http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/