mail-vet-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Discussion of auth-header draft (fwd)

2008-10-10 05:26:00
Tony Hansen wrote:

Charles Lindsey wrote:  

Actually, the best suggestion I have seen is that POP3/IMAP servers should  
see to the matter. I realise that might not be easy for POP3, but IMAP is  
already so bloated with extensions that another one would hardly be  
noticed :-( .    

Yes, I also shuddered slightly when I suggested it. But it seemed to fit
the most with what was going on. IMAP/POP servers are what the MUA is
talking with; they *are* the representative for the MDA; and the MUA is
*already* talking with the IMAP/POP servers, so could easily ask for a
bit more information.

We can write it up and see if it flies. Here's how it could look:

   IMAP
      x CAPABILITY
      x CAPABILITY Authentication-Results=isp.example.net
 

      x OK CAPABILITY completed

   POP3
      CAPA
      Authentication-Results=isp.example.net

Can we make the new capability string longer :-)?

In both cases, the isp.example.net is the authserv-id put in by *this*
MDA system.

I am slightly confused: Is there just one MDA delivering all messages to 
the user's inbox?
What about a clustered case when there are multiple LMTP servers?

As a side note:  "Authentication-Results=isp.example.net" is fine 
syntactically, but you would have to make sure that people don't put IDN 
domains in there - non US-ASCII characters are not allowed in <atom> and 
CAPABILITY strings are <atom>s.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>