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

[Imap-protocol] draft-daboo-srv-email: POP3S/IMAPS?

E-mail headers
From: Sabahattin Gucukoglu <mail@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com>
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2018 12:34:43 -0000
Message-ID: 9A584868-5961-4871-B32E-915394043727@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com permalink / raw / eml / mbox 
Hi all,

Just had a look at draft-daboo-srv-email, all very pleasant.  I think service weights have been discussed already but:

Why does the spec provision for IMAPS and POP3S?  Shouldn't we be seriously discouraging that usage?  Is there some reason to keep them, even if "deprecated"/discouraged?  Right now the only reason I know of is IMAP clients which send out LOGIN complete with password before they can be stopped; for that we have the LOGINDISABLED capability.

Cheers,
Sabahattin
Reply
E-mail headers
From: arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no
To: imap-protocol@localhost
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2018 12:34:43 -0000
Message-ID: 30kZRcRQj+KHOwnouaxaCw.md5@lochnagar.gulbrandsen.priv.no permalink / raw / eml / mbox 
Sabahattin Gucukoglu writes:
> Why does the spec provision for IMAPS and POP3S? Shouldn't we be 
> seriously discouraging that usage?

I'd like draft-daboo-srv-email to be the smallest reasonable change 
necessary in order to add srv autoconfiguration in clients.

Trying to accomplish two things is one too much.

Feel free to suggest wording for an informational section discouraging 
imaps/pop3s/smtps.

Arnt
Reply
E-mail headers
From: lyndon@orthanc.ca
To: imap-protocol@localhost
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2018 12:34:43 -0000
Message-ID: alpine.BSF.2.00.1001171529240.41896@legolas.yyc.orthanc.ca permalink / raw / eml / mbox 
> Feel free to suggest wording for an informational section discouraging 
> imaps/pop3s/smtps.

I would argue that since neither of imaps and pops are internet standards, 
normative text about them is out of scope for a standards track document, 
therefore all references to them should be deleted.

--lyndon
Reply
E-mail headers
From: arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no
To: imap-protocol@localhost
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2018 12:34:43 -0000
Message-ID: EeRzAO4Qk7y5XSPeAkVwuA.md5@lochnagar.gulbrandsen.priv.no permalink / raw / eml / mbox 
Lyndon Nerenberg writes:
>> Feel free to suggest wording for an informational section 
>> discouraging imaps/pop3s/smtps.
>
> I would argue that since neither of imaps and pops are internet 
> standards, normative text about them is out of scope for a standards 
> track document, therefore all references to them should be deleted.

Standards-track document talk about such things quite often. As long as 
it's informational, anything goes.

I grepped for (informational) references to experimental RFCs in RFCs 
5000-present, and found several hundred.

993 is a nuisance, but it's real enough.

Arnt
Reply