IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm> Mon, 20 February 2012 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <brong@fastmail.fm>
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 3609321F860B for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 05:27:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.476
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 4tdveNmqYYnQ for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 05:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE7F21F871B for <imap5@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 05:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.44]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id B627620A44 for <imap5@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:27:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.211]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:27:14 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= message-id:from:to:cc:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:references:subject:in-reply-to:date; s=mesmtp; bh= 82wO3SbFLHFQbB94XMSwRxwGx08=; b=ChL6QQcsU1xUKjVUR5FSlfZLT6LFrm8l buLJN3JScQOzWL+os4h0pyU2qbyI/niKBtmskhgYRfrLkjNN9Riti6yWVZCN4q+T DsAktVoAlC2tQSRq52iJtEG4Ojp5zPnRk7wq0pfahNnFtqiR3q7XemiiBJAuplZ1 90XIhmiLCv0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:from:to:cc:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:references:subject :in-reply-to:date; s=smtpout; bh=82wO3SbFLHFQbB94XMSwRxwGx08=; b= OpWyUzFGDf4pA1+SVOMwr+WfZC297TXOL/9SVZHUrjEMS0S4UGbg+KyN/3TPkKLI F9aVuafix1jeOM/7WDi1gE5GxiHI1gb5Fm0nSGuPehgRcxTKac9zsTSDiSLz5JYM K1mMKyAu9K44l2H5Xtjbm93AYk30HyqIXx0DpiQTU1I=
Received: by web1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix, from userid 99) id 916DFA000A0; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:27:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <1329744434.16008.140661038859217@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Sasl-Enc: 8I/5VFoTwk7HGP5EVvnDGH/acTa5/Ygq4LcPWBgkUj4/ 1329744434
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
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>
In-Reply-To: <4F41952B.8020809@qbik.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:27:14 +0100
Cc: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." <imap5@ietf.org>, Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
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 13:27:20 -0000

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012, at 01:34 PM, Adrien de Croy wrote:
> 
> 
> On 20/02/2012 12:39 p.m., Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 12:00:05PM +1300, Adrien de Croy wrote:
> >> Another problem is auto-responders, where commonly you specify a
> >> blackhole or empty return path to avoid loops.
> > Not a user client.
> 
> check out RFC 6409 Sec 3.2 para 5 re NULL return paths.
> 
> Clients do commonly auto respond.

Yep, got that.  And thanks, I'll add RFC 6409 to the list of RFCs on
the wiki.  Done.

If client do send an auto-response with a NULL return path, do they
usually store a copy of that message on the server at all?  I would
imagine they don't.

I also see from the KEYWORDS rfc (5788) that $MDNSent is registered
for the MDN purpose.  It almost seems that a SENDMDN command is what
is indicated for this usage.  Again, the "client can't screw it up"
philosophy.

Bron.
-- 
  Bron Gondwana
  brong@fastmail.fm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email