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

[Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:10:37PM -0800, Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Dan White wrote:
> >I don't think the disconnected state really matters. The email could just
> >sit in a local queue until it's reconnected to the network, at which point
> >it could be send directly to the recipient's lmtp server (which makes
> >better sense than direct imap, now that I think about it).
> 
> What if the network you are on requires you to use their servers, and
> enforces that requirement through various evil means? Their policy may
> allow external traffic going in, even from a remote IMAP server, but not
> out. They even put themselves as a MITM on SSL/TLS (not that anyone pays
> attention to cert validation messages anyway).

Sounds pretty easy to do with a nice proxyable protocol, they just block
it, and you need to use a client which supports sending to an SMTP server.

Hopefully a relatively rare case.

Rarely enough, I agree with the rest of what you said, so I won't leave
it inline with a bunch of m3t00.

Bron.