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

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> 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.

See:

  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/QcBHaAziCwHJJ4gvbO2XXB8IPB8

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.

				Ned