Re: [Extra] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ned Freed <> Fri, 11 January 2019 15:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC70B124BF6; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 07:48:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.208
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SgIypDQ9ZSEu; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 07:48:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74DAE1228B7; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 07:48:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <>; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 07:43:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=201712; t=1547221410; bh=msVmzMYJRQuz8Va1MSkyt8OOzWokBSFMtQhMExOeAF0=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=VWluXWKsZAYQcsdcoyJPWQ0bFC3OsFWsBlAjtzLSYw1zPesxVS3BLEc8qMczVwrFy mv7+gODCQC8JgKkcV/FX1OysMxs62VunCiQ8VG2cH+WvAtrwsl4wmXYO7XI3gVrURK EGhT+RRHJ+AUe/xZ58vdapTmgmCOEBlDxXnUP7es=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <>; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 07:43:25 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Ned Freed <>,, Alexey Melnikov <>,,, The IESG <>,
Message-id: <>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 07:30:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 10 Jan 2019 16:16:32 -0600" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Ben Campbell <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:48:37 -0000

> I’m primarily concerned about things that could unintentionally expose
> information to third parties. I guess data loss could be a secondary concern,
> but I’m not as concerned about that.

Since :fcc is handled locally the risk devolves down to whether or not the
wrong someone can access the message after delivery.

> In email discussion so far, the only things that have come up that seem to
> fit that is filing into a shared mailbox, or into a mailbox that is otherwise
> not well protected.

Exactly. But this does gets back to what extent we want to warn people about
doing dumb stuff.

> ...

> My point was not to do a post-mortum on 5228, or to try to fix it. I’m only
> concerned about any issue there to the extent that _this_ draft relies on it.

> > In any case, while I acknowledge that the security considerations in RFC 5228
> > could and should be improved, I think doing so in a document that provides -
> > let's face it - a power user feature and which is therefopre unlikely to be
> > consulted by base specification implementors doesn't meet a cost-benefit
> > analysis. I therefore support the text Alexey has suggested which I think goes
> > just far enough.

> I think it’s likely that I agree; which text that Alexey suggested do you
> refer to? If it’s down to mentioning shared mailboxes and moving on, I’m
> fine with it at this point.


The proposal is to cover the shared folder issue as it relates to these sorts
of messages as well as the possibility of quota issues.