Re: [Extra] I-D Action: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-01.txt

[Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018, at 00:30, Stephan Bosch wrote:
> 
> 
> Op 19-7-2018 om 16:14 schreef Bron Gondwana:
>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018, at 23:40, Ned Freed wrote:
>>> 
>>>       However, I think use of SELECT for this purpose is
>>>       problematic: It's
>>>       potentially expensive and worse, may cause undesireable state>>>       changes.
>>>       Why
>>>       not use the MYRIGHTS command to obtain the access rights (and>>>       check
>>>       for "p" or
>>>       "i") without having to select the mailbox?
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   Sure, if the ACL capability is available. I can mention that. If
>>>   it is
>>>   not available, there is really no alternative to using SELECT,
>>>   right?>>> 
>>> 
>>> Not as far as I know. But again, the problem is that SELECTing a
>>> mailbox>>> on behalf of a user can change its state, with all that implies. I'd>>> rather
>>> have my implementation fail if ACL isn't present than have a sieve
>>> operation
>>> cause a state change.
>> 
>> Thanks \Recent.  But at least EXAMINE rather than SELECT should also>> mean no change made (in theory).
>> 
> 
> The EXAMINE command will not provide information on the read-
> only status> of the mailbox though:
> 
> RFC 3501, Section 6.3.2:
> 
> The text of the tagged OK response to the EXAMINE command MUST begin
> with the "[READ-ONLY]" response code.
Oh yeah, good point.  Right!  So MYRIGHTS seems the right way then
:)  (it's certainly what we're doing the moral equivalent of
inside our code)
Bron.

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, FastMail Pty Ltd
  [e-mail]