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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 28 February 2019 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 D0613130EBE for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:12:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=SUfX9CMt; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=gpND4P0y
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 NJgwTEmd2T7N for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:12:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (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 8716F12008A for <extra@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 08:12:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 58309 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2019 16:12:14 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=e3c3.5c78085e.k1902; bh=H15VSlll29b94Aed++C7XKKivaZF4ajishI5fyC30E8=; b=SUfX9CMtED3+wloWNBvIp3PAvJcDg3Gy7Icj3/DmcWkvIelsO4cjimBshiuxcAVK86OVs4drE8Wf0Z9PxRDFetMcUGWKA8/8Gz5T4jTVeb8e/vx5xtlRTbO2/p2xnKqkfqWfizh/qDGLCSx/a01KEYTWLLx1M88izqeaMB9re1cmwAmociOty8VWsS0G5Bp+1D1CeHK4Sf6wiBx4vr4Cqhfg7Ito3lNZ/FLnEDfrCSJiWrHasIS5tchy2kxnZodc
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=e3c3.5c78085e.k1902; bh=H15VSlll29b94Aed++C7XKKivaZF4ajishI5fyC30E8=; b=gpND4P0yeil3VoqSu1EIB7WokfZUapS5/eFEp1RtnQZybBEpe1bzBUIuMTmRooXJWowSUgrQbRO1Dkm3AZs3xoUUwOjXARE0nq0KfSTTW88HGr/2byOXYaK8P+GN5PGh6lhj8PWaf3gAUzAo7u3+m8IzUrFDoziday/XL1YGNKzjd4md5MSb4rj8QG08Ha9OH+PuU9BEjz8rGcaLJD5AOKwpwrPBvDkt2AyXrL0RWr7tEVGE0sWosor8MeadIuOt
Received: from ary.local ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 28 Feb 2019 16:12:14 -0000
Received: by ary.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id D1442200F6FF92; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 11:12:13 -0500 (EST)
Date: 28 Feb 2019 11:12:13 -0500
Message-Id: <20190228161213.D1442200F6FF92@ary.local>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: extra@ietf.org
Cc: arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no
In-Reply-To: <8ce7f4bf-805d-4fbe-8854-5381a4346b2a@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/Orkgr3Yam6B6p3vw_1ezTk8vjQo>
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: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:12:19 -0000

In article <8ce7f4bf-805d-4fbe-8854-5381a4346b2a@gulbrandsen.priv.no> you write:
>You're proposing something more like... x-face meets dkim? Good.

More or less. 

>If you do it by adding a field to either content-type or 
>content-disposition, a bit like 3676, then it's easy ...

Urrgh.  Most of the mail that's likely to have a logo is multipart/alternative
and I'm not interested in wrapping contents in yet more MIME layers, which would
among other things break any existing DKIM signatures.

It's more like you add the x-face header, then add a new DKIM signature that includes
the x-face along with the usual stuff, and the MUA decides to believe it because the
signature is from its imap provider.

R's,
John