mailing list archives

meli community discussions

⚠️ if something does not work as intended when interracting with the mailing lists,
reach out Github mirror Gitea repo @epilys:matrix.org

E-mail headers
From: Gene Smith <gds@chartertn.net>
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 11:10:57 -0000
Message-ID: 8cade395-864a-9039-6bfa-874c26e5967e@chartertn.net permalink / raw / eml / mbox
Thunderbird has recently received a patch to add a CLIENTID capability 
which can be seen here: 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1532388.

This includes links to the draft RFCs for IMAP and SMTP. I have been 
unable to find any other information on this feature. Is it supported or 
plaanned to be supported on any other IMAP or SMTP server?

-gene
Reply
E-mail headers
From: blong@google.com
To: imap-protocol@localhost
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 09:44:40 -0000
Message-ID: CABa8R6ufcJ9GimEoLrFkKnMCh14n5+VK3uN-++f4tE-qfPW-7g@mail.gmail.com permalink / raw / eml / mbox
Although I don't work on the Gmail imap anymore, I will say that we
implemented a competing idea (AUTH LOGIN-CLIENTTOKEN), though we eventually
decided to concentrate on OAUTHBEARER.  OAUTH authorizes each client
separately, so provides the same client based benefits.

If this became standard, we could implement it, but I haven't really seen
consensus on it yet, or adoption by a working group.  When it matures, we
would need to look at how many 'legacy' auth users we have , and the
benefits to that population.

Brandon

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 11:11 AM Gene Smith <gds@chartertn.net> wrote:

> Thunderbird has recently received a patch to add a CLIENTID capability
> which can be seen here:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1532388.
>
> This includes links to the draft RFCs for IMAP and SMTP. I have been
> unable to find any other information on this feature. Is it supported or
> plaanned to be supported on any other IMAP or SMTP server?
>
> -gene
> _______________________________________________
> Imap-protocol mailing list
> Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
> http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20190331/a3933c8d/attachment.html>
Reply
E-mail headers
From: brong@fastmail.fm
To: imap-protocol@localhost
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 18:07:17 -0000
Message-ID: fd8e452a-a4e9-4123-aa54-e026735269d6@www.fastmail.com permalink / raw / eml / mbox
For what it's worth, this work was brought to the EXTRA working group at IETF at Montreal last year, and the group decided that it wasn't the right level in the stack for this kind of ID - that it would be better placed in the SASL layer.

The OAUTH technique also strikes me as a better long-term solution, because it means that users aren't entering their own selected password to be stored on disk by clients.

On the flip side, I'm sensitive to the argument from Linux Magic that this solves a problem RIGHT NOW which a perfect future solution might solve better, but a future solution doesn't fix anything for the current environment.

Regarding the discussion on bugzilla - I would agree that it's quite important that the same ID MUST NOT be sent to different servers - the CLIENTID should be generated as a unique hash over ('deviceid', 'username', 'domain').

Bron.

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, at 03:51, Brandon Long wrote:
> Although I don't work on the Gmail imap anymore, I will say that we implemented a competing idea (AUTH LOGIN-CLIENTTOKEN), though we eventually decided to concentrate on OAUTHBEARER. OAUTH authorizes each client separately, so provides the same client based benefits.
> 
> If this became standard, we could implement it, but I haven't really seen consensus on it yet, or adoption by a working group. When it matures, we would need to look at how many 'legacy' auth users we have , and the benefits to that population.
> 
> Brandon
> 
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 11:11 AM Gene Smith <gds@chartertn.net> wrote:
>> Thunderbird has recently received a patch to add a CLIENTID capability 
>> which can be seen here: 
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1532388.
>> 
>> This includes links to the draft RFCs for IMAP and SMTP. I have been 
>> unable to find any other information on this feature. Is it supported or 
>> plaanned to be supported on any other IMAP or SMTP server?
>> 
>> -gene
>> _______________________________________________
>> Imap-protocol mailing list
>> Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
>> http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
> _______________________________________________
> Imap-protocol mailing list
> Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
> http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol

-- 
 Bron Gondwana
 brong@fastmail.fm

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20190401/843d2247/attachment.html>
Reply
E-mail headers
From: dave@cridland.net
To: imap-protocol@localhost
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 08:35:44 -0000
Message-ID: CAKHUCzyjLH2NmaLY=XyRAiuVTce7+D8Rfmh3pqN4O-UQmBrO6w@mail.gmail.com permalink / raw / eml / mbox
See also: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cridland-kitten-clientkey-00

I implemented this in XMPP for various reasons, but there's no particular
reason it couldn't be used for IMAP et al.

On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 02:08, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> For what it's worth, this work was brought to the EXTRA working group at
> IETF at Montreal last year, and the group decided that it wasn't the right
> level in the stack for this kind of ID - that it would be better placed in
> the SASL layer.
>
> The OAUTH technique also strikes me as a better long-term solution,
> because it means that users aren't entering their own selected password to
> be stored on disk by clients.
>
> On the flip side, I'm sensitive to the argument from Linux Magic that this
> solves a problem RIGHT NOW which a perfect future solution might solve
> better, but a future solution doesn't fix anything for the current
> environment.
>
> Regarding the discussion on bugzilla - I would agree that it's quite
> important that the same ID MUST NOT be sent to different servers - the
> CLIENTID should be generated as a unique hash over ('deviceid', 'username',
> 'domain').
>
> Bron.
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, at 03:51, Brandon Long wrote:
>
> Although I don't work on the Gmail imap anymore, I will say that we
> implemented a competing idea (AUTH LOGIN-CLIENTTOKEN), though we eventually
> decided to concentrate on OAUTHBEARER.  OAUTH authorizes each client
> separately, so provides the same client based benefits.
>
> If this became standard, we could implement it, but I haven't really seen
> consensus on it yet, or adoption by a working group.  When it matures, we
> would need to look at how many 'legacy' auth users we have , and the
> benefits to that population.
>
> Brandon
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 11:11 AM Gene Smith <gds@chartertn.net> wrote:
>
> Thunderbird has recently received a patch to add a CLIENTID capability
> which can be seen here:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1532388.
>
> This includes links to the draft RFCs for IMAP and SMTP. I have been
> unable to find any other information on this feature. Is it supported or
> plaanned to be supported on any other IMAP or SMTP server?
>
> -gene
> _______________________________________________
> Imap-protocol mailing list
> Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
> http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imap-protocol mailing list
> Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
> http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
>
>
> --
>   Bron Gondwana
>   brong@fastmail.fm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imap-protocol mailing list
> Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
> http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20190402/10ab392f/attachment.html>
Reply