Re: [Extra] Status of draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Sun, 13 January 2019 15:54 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 C627112870E for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Jan 2019 07:54:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 vn9b8_SKIAYU for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Jan 2019 07:54:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.218.59.24]) (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 4419F127B4C for <extra@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Jan 2019 07:54:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01R1YF7SA43K00FRLW@mauve.mrochek.com> for extra@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Jan 2019 07:49:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=201712; t=1547394551; bh=wl6qqCTb4Bc10O7il4X5xlldoEVNqyJa3h9rdt0EuFQ=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To:From; b=QVkKdmvDT5jX/YzUywqHFKDlJ7B5tq8UFnOzu5kE67t0eCrfXUMn4c5mG6kXeaOI5 ywEDi/BfJSKTzMnr3f2qEHy2y7LGO8QVpUp9WUGb3vjyre9bt3bSRLkMPSDxHFcDhO ol+ZoEKQtqTqloV/FXzhCum9DGFgr5AwyD7KpHC4=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01R1N39ADWKW00004L@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sun, 13 Jan 2019 07:49:03 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, extra <extra@ietf.org>
Message-id: <01R1YF7MV0SW00004L@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 07:48:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sun, 13 Jan 2019 10:42:31 -0500" <dd49ff64-0e95-ba5a-afe1-c24062c7d243@fastmail.com>
References: <3489d633-6c9f-ccf5-8273-7101bf9fa55f@isode.com> <1f9e9303-6634-1e37-841f-f67d2d9c3a22@fastmail.com> <01R1YEK77JMI00004L@mauve.mrochek.com> <dd49ff64-0e95-ba5a-afe1-c24062c7d243@fastmail.com>
To: Ken Murchison <murch@fastmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/vGHWtG-NMKfgOnZ-05g_cRSJ3vU>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Status of draft-ietf-extra-sieve-fcc
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: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:54:17 -0000


> On 1/13/19 10:22 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
> >> On 1/10/19 11:40 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > Based on IESG review, I think the document should have some text about
> >> > the following security/privacy considerations:
> >> >
> >> > 1) Possible information disclosure from generated messages which are
> >> > filed to shared folders (as opposed to private folders). I.e. non
> >> > intended parties might discover that a Sieve script owner is on
> >> > holidays, owner's location, etc.
> >> >
> >> > 2) FCC can put owner over quota, causing denial of service.
> >
> >
> >> How would this cause DoS?  If the FCC would put the user over quota,
> >> presumably this would be treated as a run-time error, and the incoming
> >> message would be be stored by an implicit keep.  Or are you just saying
> >> that the FCC itself is what would be denied?
> >
> > It's not the effect of a single fcc, but rather that fcc can be used
> > to create
> > an additional stream of messages, the cumulative effect of which would
> > be to
> > put the user at or over quota.


> Ahh, yes!  I hadn't thought about that.


> > As for the handling of situations where the fcc can't be delivered, we're
> > talking about notifications here, and we've learned the hard way that
> > generating more traffic as as result of a notification delivery
> > failure is a
> > REALLY bad idea. As such, I would expect an fcc delivery failure to be
> > silently ignored. That's certainly how my implementation works.


> Should we add text to this effect?

Good idea.

				Ned