Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to... (off-topic)

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Mon, 05 May 2014 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6281A064C for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.653
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 mQ6qRhno2H7s for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827831A064B for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P7GCA85LG0001N03@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf-822@ietf.org; Mon, 5 May 2014 13:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1399322906; bh=QVFHRXononfW0TVPfdACEFAf95SoVi1dNGAQ24FT66I=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=BR1GwBugJD+u5q1M+cC+SFv5fZ/6iG+Xle37KF6xnIbpsytiW3tDBALH5dlo6FDgG hcAXcEGDFV2UZrD9xnXgAG9AsW355015YRVgkgosSuXxJrTzaYX/IQgPPkm6GC86wZ Ytcozgyx+nFVu2cY/K2HqqjeXN4o+SgWEzgB5EjQ=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P7EXXVVVA8000052@mauve.mrochek.com>; Mon, 05 May 2014 13:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01P7GCA4UPIK000052@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 13:45:40 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 05 May 2014 14:42:27 -0400" <5367DB93.3050509@meetinghouse.net>
References: <20140418123721.3610.qmail@joyce.lan> <5365357D.2020101@tana.it> <53653C7A.3090304@pscs.co.uk> <53655C13.9070201@isdg.net> <5365F4F8.6020605@pscs.co.uk> <536629D7.7040809@meetinghouse.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140505075814.0c9b0a68@resistor.net> <5367DB93.3050509@meetinghouse.net>
To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/wyPYrS_0IX9fptYMrsQNS6nPc1w
Cc: ietf-822@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-822] WSJ/gmail/ML, was a permission to... (off-topic)
X-BeenThere: ietf-822@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Internet Message Format \[RFC 822, RFC 2822, RFC 5322\]" <ietf-822.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-822/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-822@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 20:53:36 -0000

> S Moonesamy wrote:
> > Hi Miles,
> > At 04:51 04-05-2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> >> No. If I have a secretary make 20 copies of a letter, and drop it off
> >> at the post office, I'm still the author of the message.  A
> >> secretary, forwarder, mailing list, what have you, is acting on my
> >> behalf, as my agent.  The letter is from me, and the return address
> >> should be mine.
> >
> > Which MUA would you recommend for the secretary to send a message on
> > behalf of an author?
> >

> Well, I was using physical mail handling as an analogy, but... Outlook
> supports delegated access rights for sending on behalf of, as well as
> scheduling meetings on behalf of another mail user. Would a recommend
> Outlook - that's a separate question :-)

I haven't set it up myself, but I believe our web client product supports it as
well.

And judging from how often we've been asked to implement various schemes to
authenticate various send on behalf of as part of SUBMIT, there are other
clients out there that support it.

				Ned