Re: [apps-discuss] Mail client configuration via something, maybe WebFinger

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 10 February 2016 03:00 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D18F1B3577 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 19:00:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.863
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.863 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, KHOP_DYNAMIC=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yr3aT0dDe11J for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:59:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 636941B35B4 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 18:59:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 41015 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2016 02:59:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 10 Feb 2016 02:59:57 -0000
Date: 10 Feb 2016 02:59:35 -0000
Message-ID: <20160210025935.98561.qmail@ary.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <56BA5C72.7050708@gmail.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/d8zXdwKOaGnLD41BFAyQMFxXq7c>
Cc: douglasroyer@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Mail client configuration via something, maybe WebFinger
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 03:00:00 -0000

>Maybe the there are two separate issues.
>
> - How to containerize and standardize passing of configuration information ...

> - How to transport that information across whatever transport is available.

I'm a big fan of not inventing stuff if we don't have to.

First I'd like to understand why mail clients don't implement RFC
6186.  It seems to me that for a whole lot of mail users, it provides
all the configuration info they need.  I realize there are mail
systems where the e-mail address isn't the user ID, and systems where
users in a single domain are assigned to different servers, but there
sure are a lot of systems including the very largest where that's not
a problem.

If the answer is anything other than inertia, that might give us some
guidance as to what a better design would look like.  If, as I
suspect, the answer really is inertia, a new design is unlikely to be
any more successful.

R's,
John