Re: [Extra] Fwd: Personnel change for extra WG

Michael Slusarz <michael.slusarz@open-xchange.com> Wed, 03 April 2019 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <michael.slusarz@open-xchange.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 B1CFD120203 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=open-xchange.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 GT7qA9pECa6k for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (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 93EA612003E for <extra@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0263B6A23E for <extra@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 23:49:10 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1554328150; bh=OzouqEKORnEcjDsWhK/WPAyieWpgLMEkUHlaTVxkclQ=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=gYgX/zDGre57DAEPl4rLmHpMHo0nYC9c1OU3g/QMPKrwJbGl6P2AX4lMTlzSQNknJ Mw5VaNY60qFW1wgkgkuwPXCRo3jM8WDlNiu4jhez7yohfrDniB0y1nm3hT3Z0sLV2a aC2Tm4OPLxAFiCXLNSejMyPv3huOJBqSR4YPJY4oSfJsVAO7DnqlfdNnl8B5NyQvSB TjQtfccZDWAnzYSik9qxXOPaMUg4K6lZ5cyIOvlH+rLsdRgP1FYnr8ppdSq7SGzTrz Jil7l8XAKRVe8qrU5puzRtUxp01UbnXNf5tWxBI2QzRwl4b1yr8i7ClILYJlnQjobk rdRs1ybdl1YAA==
Received: from appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com (appsuite-gw2.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.82]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA53D3C0399 for <extra@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 23:49:09 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 15:49:09 -0600 (MDT)
From: Michael Slusarz <michael.slusarz@open-xchange.com>
To: extra@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1003410466.3899.1554328149896@appsuite.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <533a9f07-80c6-4cbc-b7af-fe10ce62580c@www.fastmail.com>
References: <49b87029-7cc2-4324-9d97-f7fa2b8762ce@www.fastmail.com> <25ed8a44-6fce-4778-d9cd-d732b7cb91f6@linuxmagic.com> <533a9f07-80c6-4cbc-b7af-fe10ce62580c@www.fastmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_3898_952948028.1554328149890"
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Medium
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.1-Rev10
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/9NkrUeq4P9KtSGAZXnfGgpP0ufs>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Fwd: Personnel change for extra WG
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, 03 Apr 2019 21:49:17 -0000

> On March 28, 2019 at 10:11 AM Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com> wrote:
> 
>     Regarding the IMAP flags, it sounds like you are asking for the $JunkRecorded flag to be standardised, as a keyword which is only set on user action?
> 
Similar keywords were part of the IMAP keyword registry draft (eventually RFC 5788), before it was taken out:

https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-melnikov-imap-keywords-04.txt

Maybe Alexey can comment on the reasoning.

(I'll note that $AutoJunk, along with $NoJunk, made it into some RFC 4551/5162/7162 examples...)

For our customers, the much more interesting question is a method to inform mail clients *how* to report messages as Junk (or Not Junk).  RFC 6154 is as close as there is to a standard, with its "\Junk" label, but it doesn't explicitly provide details on whether messages moved to the \Junk mailbox, (or moved out of it) are definitively reported to an AV/AS provider.

A SPECIAL-USE label of something like "\JunkReporting", with an explicit definition that messages moved into this mailbox by user action are reported as Junk and messages moved out of this mailbox by user action are reported as Not Junk, would be tremendously useful.

michael