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

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Fri, 11 January 2019 15:48 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 BC70B124BF6; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 07:48:36 -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 SgIypDQ9ZSEu; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 07:48:35 -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 74DAE1228B7; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 07:48:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01R1VMG0L8SW00EYJ7@mauve.mrochek.com>; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 07:43:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; 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 mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01R1N39ADWKW00004L@mauve.mrochek.com>; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 07:43:25 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc@ietf.org, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, extra@ietf.org, yaojk@cnnic.cn, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, extra-chairs@ietf.org
Message-id: <01R1VMFXYJC400004L@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 07:30:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 10 Jan 2019 16:16:32 -0600" <47A55584-25D5-409A-B5D0-884A9F8FAA30@nostrum.com>
References: <154707068927.5028.9965727374137648132.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <553C69A0-9D9F-45F7-9586-B0BD71DF2661@fastmail.fm> <9DF727DF-068E-437D-B8E1-D3A71A087DE3@nostrum.com> <01R1UIX3NK2M00004L@mauve.mrochek.com> <47A55584-25D5-409A-B5D0-884A9F8FAA30@nostrum.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/7bQhur1iwiEbtCQRqiIQ0DiLZZ4>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: 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.

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