Re: [apps-discuss] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-sieve-duplicate-09: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> I wondered what'd happen if you used a DKIM-Signature
> header with this, but I guess it should just work.

Yeh, I think it should just work.  For that case, I actually think the
best approach would be to use the Variables extension to extract the
hash from the DKIM "b=" tag, and use that for the unique ID.  But even
using the whole header field should work fine.

> However, I don't recall if that header value is ok to
> compare case-sensitive (e.g. "d=" might not be?).

I'd think that shouldn't be an issue.  If you're really looking for
duplicates, it's probably fine to only consider them duplicates if
they're exact matches.

> Nothing to do with this draft in the end, but I think the
> security/privacy discussion ended up raising a couple of
> interesting issues that might be worth revisiting if/when
> someone has energy: those were a) if we could make some
> good privacy-friendly (but also admin friendly)
> recommendations about logging mail and b) if we could
> consider the privacy implications of sieve scripts or
> other filters (I liked the "stupid boss" folder name one,
> and am guilty of that for some of my own mail:-) and what
> those might expose. For (a) I could imagine a useful
> informational RFC, not sure for (b).

Yeh.  I think a "privacy issues with email deployment" document might
be interesting to have.  I don't know who would have the interest and
energy to do it.

Barry