IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [imap5] Feature set? - was Re: Designing a new replacement protocol for IMAP

Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> Mon, 20 February 2012 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <adrien@qbik.com>
X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BDD121F85B7 for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:36:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.586
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yrOTJtI6VOLt for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:36:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.qbik.com (smtp.qbik.com [210.55.214.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24A2F21F852A for <imap5@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:36:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: From [192.168.1.10] (unverified [125.237.241.8]) by SMTP Server [210.55.214.35] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v7.1.0 (Build 3384)) with SMTP id <0018873559@smtp.qbik.com>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:36:08 +1300
Message-ID: <4F42AEB0.4040901@qbik.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:36:00 +1300
From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
References: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202161626400.30682@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4F3D6E57.8010301@qbik.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202171127330.30682@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4F3F4F8F.3040601@qbik.com> <1329550573.30138.140661038121885@webmail.messagingengine.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202191832430.12769@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <20120219192604.GA11323@launde.brong.net> <4F415C07.3040100@qbik.com> <20120219220835.GB12549@launde.brong.net> <4F417EF5.6030809@qbik.com> <20120219233901.GA13600@launde.brong.net> <4F41952B.8020809@qbik.com> <1329744434.16008.140661038859217@webmail.messagingengine.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202201329130.31357@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4F42ABC1.2040507@qbik.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F42ABC1.2040507@qbik.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>, "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." <imap5@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [imap5] Feature set? - was Re: Designing a new replacement protocol for IMAP
X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." <imap5.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/imap5>, <mailto:imap5-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/imap5>
List-Post: <mailto:imap5@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imap5-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5>, <mailto:imap5-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:36:11 -0000

the reason I bring this up.

Even though we may not fix SMTP MDN issues etc in a long time, if we 
build protocol support for notifying a client about things relating to 
delivery etc, then we can

a) implement it initially with server-side heuristics if at all (e.g. 
recognise and strip bounce messages, or deliver them to a special folder 
and notify)
b) move to a deterministic model once it becomes available

So it affects what we do now with whatever client-server stuff we do now.

Adrien


On 21/02/2012 9:23 a.m., Adrien de Croy wrote:
>
> the main problem with MDNs, bounce messages etc is that the network 
> doesn't know what they are.
>
> This is WAY o-t now...
>
> With TCP or UDP etc, if you have a delivery issue (certain types), you 
> get an ICMP message back.
>
> If there was a distinction between a control message and a data 
> message, then the network could know things like how to not create loops.
>
> It could also mean we could drop the requirement to allow submission 
> of mail with NULL return paths, and instead use a non-destructive (in 
> terms of information) method to notify issues which retained the 
> addressing information.
>
> It would need to be clearly defined, machine readable etc.  It could 
> be stored and forwarded, and moved over the same transport.  It would 
> just need to be unambiguously identifiable in all cases, which IMO 
> would require another verb in the mail transport to mark it as a 
> control message.  I don't think message format would cut it.
>
> In terms of privacy etc, if you send a registered letter to someone, 
> you know when it is received.  You're entitled to know this, and you 
> don't hear complaints about it.  So I don't have a problem with the 
> concept of allowing a sender to know when a message is retrieved.  I 
> just turned off MDNs because the way they are implemented is 
> problematic esp with spam.
>
> Adrien
>
>
> On 21/02/2012 2:30 a.m., Tony Finch wrote:
>> Bron Gondwana<brong@fastmail.fm>  wrote:
>>> It almost seems that a SENDMDN command is what is indicated for this
>>> usage.  Again, the "client can't screw it up" philosophy.
>> On the other hand, MDNs are an abusive misfeature that should be 
>> shunned.
>>
>> Tony.
>

-- 
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email