Re: [Extra] Is this a plausible IMAP extension ?

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Wed, 27 February 2019 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A5A813101F for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 09:35:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.208
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.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 geuDFgBFK_u2 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 09:35:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (unknown [66.159.242.17]) (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 CC492130FFB for <extra@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 09:35:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01R3PE1J8A1S00OVQ8@mauve.mrochek.com> for extra@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 09:35:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1551288903; bh=rU/Ly7yYaDz/NvH/iwBFebL3sk0DxhCoSbr2MRRcBS4=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=WqYiAh0D3q4C65VQlZ7mVNOYbvs1LtPKJiUNkISj1nSwkNdu1uRTV7wgw3q+gxa4D sF/qXYlAT4FE2mOeZSOJHITrArs62jYvnUOs3SpxHL8Mhse74FZtCru81g39ygEGYF G8aFChQOUZIK1mE8+zZ+lnihLPnvdzdXNOBipou0=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01R3MU6TZ3HS00004L@mauve.mrochek.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 06:47:15 -0800 (PST)
Cc: extra@ietf.org
Message-id: <01R3P86JVOOM00004L@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 06:45:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 26 Feb 2019 23:17:09 -0500" <af25a165-ff24-41d4-810e-b00adf2092d5@beta.fastmail.com>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1902262150050.14048@ary.local> <af25a165-ff24-41d4-810e-b00adf2092d5@beta.fastmail.com>
To: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/1APBzC0hX8Pzo-5JDCUKM0DE75U>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Is this a plausible IMAP extension ?
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <extra.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/extra/>
List-Post: <mailto:extra@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 17:35:11 -0000

> This isn't a standard feature on any IMAP server I'm aware of.

> I can see how to implement it in Cyrus IMAPd. Add a custom numbered ACL to control a set of listed flags, and allow the delivery agent to have that ACL.

> On the other hand...

> We do something like this already at FastMail, and here's the thing.... the
> user should be allowed to add or clear this header to change the interpretation
> of the email in their mailbox. Once they have the message - they should be able
> to update the BIMI status.

This seems entirely reasonable to me, but now we're talking about updating the
message content. This pretty much pushes it out of the header space as 
far as I'm concerned.

> This is particularly important when you're talking about importing and
> exporting email between systems. Having the flag to avoid phishing, sure. But
> restricting MUAs from setting that flag - that's bogus.

Exactly.

> I guess I'm going to the BIMI session.

Sounds like a good idea.

				Ned