Re: [pop3ext] UIDL response to CAPA command

Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@oracle.com> Sat, 17 November 2012 00:56 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.shannon@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: pop3ext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pop3ext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E58B821F8BA2 for <pop3ext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:56:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.392
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.207, BAYES_40=-0.185]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y32kwCMoMn4T for <pop3ext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:56:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A34321F8B68 for <pop3ext@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:56:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qAH0u8xw022822 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <pop3ext@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:56:09 GMT
Received: from datsunx.us.oracle.com (datsunx.us.oracle.com [10.132.180.90]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAH0u7Lv020805 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <pop3ext@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:56:08 GMT
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by datsunx.us.oracle.com (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAH0u4Kt021788; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:56:06 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50A6E0A4.6030102@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:56:04 -0800
From: Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; SunOS i86pc; rv:10.0.6esrpre) Gecko/20120731 Thunderbird/10.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pop3ext@ietf.org
References: <50A409B1.9020702@oracle.com> <196CBE3CC7222C8957041F15@dhcp-amer-vpn-rmdc-anyconnect-10-159-123-100.vpn.oracle.com> <50A42344.6080502@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <50A42344.6080502@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]
Subject: Re: [pop3ext] UIDL response to CAPA command
X-BeenThere: pop3ext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions and updates to Post Office Protocol \(POP3\)" <pop3ext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pop3ext>, <mailto:pop3ext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pop3ext>
List-Post: <mailto:pop3ext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pop3ext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pop3ext>, <mailto:pop3ext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:56:11 -0000

I haven't heard from anyone else so I'm assuming the consensus opinion
is that the UIDL capability can't change based on authentication.

Thanks.

Bill Shannon wrote on 11/14/12 15:03:
> Well, that was my initial reading as well, and I'd be happy with that
> interpretation, but the spec says:
> 
>    If a capability is announced in both states, but the argument might
>    differ after authentication, this possibility MUST be stated in the
>    capability description.
> 
>    (These requirements allow a client to issue only one CAPA command if
>    it does not use any TRANSACTION-only capabilities, or any
>    capabilities whose values may differ after authentication.)
> 
> Note that it talks about "arguments" or "values", not about whether
> the capability itself might be present or not.
> 
> It's that ambiguity that caused me to ask, just to be sure...
> 
> Chris Newman wrote on 11/14/12 14:02:
>> Section 6.8 says:
>>
>> Announced states / possible differences:
>> both / no
>>
>> So it looks like you're not allowed by RFC 2994's CAPA registration for UIDL
>> advertisement to change after authentication.
>>
>>         - Chris
>>
>> --On November 14, 2012 13:14:25 -0800 Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> Does RFC 2994 allow the UIDL capability to be missing from a CAPA
>>> response before authentication, but included in a CAPA response
>>> after authentication?
>>
>