IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [art] Auto-configuring Email Clients via WebFinger

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Thu, 18 July 2019 03:14 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.com>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A4E812062C for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 20:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=packetizer.com
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 KgsO1u2loy7Y for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 20:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [IPv6:2600:1f18:24d6:2e01:e842:9b2b:72a2:d2c6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37082120110 for <art@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 20:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from authuser (localhost [127.0.0.1])
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1563419674; bh=h1eNRgK3ovBhUm2/OYGCAEu7UMn+8Qnuhr0dndPsGxY=; h=From:To:Subject:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:Reply-To; b=ATlppqwbdjTZKCoCZBGvXRKGnngD4LD1tFqc7+AnuDknJVWxGYUnDOhEziIvnneWc PtDkZisdA+ztZE3eh8tlNWfYqwWUkGrQ69BxZTPJ2gaOkSwC8vzu/yKylDXUwH+pNK cr3Gbfd+YDvwpQK/8Q1qQ3QK2lrbpaVl/a7DVKOY=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: Austin Wright <aaa@bzfx.net>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: masinter@gmail.com, art@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 03:14:29 +0000
Message-Id: <em0db7240b-bba5-4698-958d-ef0bd5ef0d03@sydney>
In-Reply-To: <3A04338D-CE01-4693-92AF-4AE5CB70A68F@bzfx.net>
References: <20190716220519.A420450758F@ary.qy> <3A04338D-CE01-4693-92AF-4AE5CB70A68F@bzfx.net>
Reply-To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/7.2.35595.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/fVSWTefB9C2hSVVrDxD-dkdB4rw>
Subject: Re: [art] Auto-configuring Email Clients via WebFinger
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 03:14:40 -0000

Austin,

>What are the risks if the mail server and HTTP server are maintained by different authorities?
>

I expect they would be in some cases, such as service providers that 
sell simple web hosting services. That's another reason why people 
several years ago suggested that we separate the initial inquiry from 
the follow-up that actually returns the mail configuration data. That's 
how the example is presented in my draft.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email