IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> Sat, 18 February 2012 07:12 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 0AA4D21F85CD for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:12:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.928
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.928 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.329, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 DTVj3akhXDTl for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:12:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.qbik.com (smtp.qbik.com [210.55.214.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97DEB21F85C5 for <imap5@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:12:39 -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 3381)) with SMTP id <0018869568@smtp.qbik.com>; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 20:12:35 +1300
Message-ID: <4F3F4F63.5070706@qbik.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 20:12:35 +1300
From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120202 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
References: <3077.1329388899.383165@puncture> <4F3CE16B.3060603@qbik.com> <3077.1329391344.173214@puncture> <4F3CEB35.9080200@qbik.com> <1329394296.953.140661037317197@webmail.messagingengine.com> <4F3CFD35.10501@qbik.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202161626400.30682@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4F3D6E57.8010301@qbik.com> <20120216224124.GC4578@dan.olp.net> <CABa8R6uxeFVSDQzzSS6ziV8b2roYdw38GMpjEm+1DGkhD3MdVg@mail.gmail.com> <20120216232954.GB5356@dan.olp.net> <4F3DA4A6.5020304@qbik.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202171535330.30682@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202171535330.30682@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
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: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:12:43 -0000

On 18/02/2012 4:36 a.m., Tony Finch wrote:
> Adrien de Croy<adrien@qbik.com>  wrote:
>> Whichever way you do it, BURL vs SUBMIT, there is an issue of trust if the 2
>> servers are in different realms.
> I don't think that setup is worth supporting in a simplified protocol.

I agree.

If a remote SMTP Server needs to be used for submission, then the IMAP 
server can be configured with some creds it can use for all submissions 
from all clients.

>
> Tony.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email