Subject: [apps-discuss] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-sieve-duplicate-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 15:40:02 -0700

Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-appsawg-sieve-duplicate-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-sieve-duplicate/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A small point that is not at the level of a Discuss, but...
Are there not some implications on the integrity of the message ID on a
message that should be stated. Clearly, if a message ID can be touched,
the message can be made to appear to be a duplicate causing the sieve to
throw it out.

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2014 15:54:56 -0700 (PDT)

> the message can be made to appear to be a duplicate causing the sieve to

If a message-id can be touched, so can the message. What's to prevent someone
from removing the message content, or inserting a known virus, or for
that matter modifying the envelope so the message doesn't even make
it to the user?

If you have the ability to modify a message in transit, there are a myriad
of things you can do to it that would render it undeliverable, insure
that it gets discarded, etc. Out of all these things, why would you pick
one that not only requires that the recipient be using a particular Sieve
extension in a particular way, but also requires knowledge of more than
one message?

I'm really not seeing an actual issue here.

				Ned

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 12:47:28 +0100

Hi Ned,

Sounds reasonable.
My thinking was that it would be fun to make a very tiny mod to a message
(possibly too small to be obvious) and cause the recipient to discard it itself.

But you're right, the security is an all or nothing thing.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ned Freed [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 21 June 2014 23:55
> To: Adrian Farrel
> Cc: The IESG; [email-masked]; draft-ietf-appsawg-sieve-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Adrian Farrel's No Objection on
draft-ietf-appsawg-sieve-duplicate-
> 07: (with COMMENT)