IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Jmap] Submission

"Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> Mon, 24 April 2017 00:29 UTC

Return-Path: <adrien@qbik.com>
X-Original-To: jmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 528EE120726 for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 17:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Uu9k_I8zZfzz for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 17:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.qbik.com (smtp.qbik.com [122.56.26.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32A6E1204DA for <jmap@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Apr 2017 17:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: From [192.168.1.146] (unverified [192.168.1.146]) by SMTP Server [192.168.1.3] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v9.0.5 (Build 5926)) with SMTP id <0001027835@smtp.qbik.com>; Mon, 24 Apr 2017 12:29:39 +1200
From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Cc: "jmap@ietf.org" <jmap@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 00:29:40 +0000
Message-Id: <em388d79dd-ef11-4b05-89ce-7b61247940d0@bodybag>
In-Reply-To: <01QDIUI7C57800005B@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <20170419163429.8556.qmail@ary.lan> <87d1c873cf.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <alpine.OSX.2.20.1704191353500.43511@ary.qy> <01QDEV2QM6XC00005O@mauve.mrochek.com> <BC098A22-2837-4316-822A-27232A896EF1@fugue.com> <4471fa93-2321-4a7e-87b0-fbb00927d584@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <01QDIUI7C57800005B@mauve.mrochek.com>
Reply-To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/7.0.27943.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/QnEcwAssHm_Knyd9XbJRsNsTyJI>
Subject: Re: [Jmap] Submission
X-BeenThere: jmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: JSON Message Access Protocol <jmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jmap>, <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/jmap/>
List-Post: <mailto:jmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jmap>, <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 00:29:46 -0000


------ Original Message ------
From: "Ned Freed" <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
>
>Proxy authentication is widely if not universally supported using any
>number of techniques. And again, you don't get rid of the need to
>perform any number of actions based on the submitters identity just 
>because
>the user already authenticated to JMAP.
I can think of one major platform (Windows) where this approach will be 
highly problematic.

Are we talking about a JMAP proxy (e.g. the client talks real-time via 
the JMAP server to the SUBMIT server), or are we talking about a system 
where the JMAP server accepts the message, and MAYBE forwards it via 
SMTP or SUBMIT depending on the destination.

If the latter, I would suggest that building a system that requires 
individual user credentials to be presented to the next hop will be 
highly problematic.

Adrien


>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email