From tss@iki.fi Thu May 2 08:42:32 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6010B21F8F38 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 08:42:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -108.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dh6R1VSl54r7 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 08:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dovecot.org (dovecot.org [193.210.130.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74CED21F8F32 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 08:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (vfw03.dovecot.fi [88.194.145.100]) by dovecot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ABF01AE8876 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 18:42:22 +0300 (EEST) From: Timo Sirainen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <60D7D6E9-8A9C-4282-B5E5-F6F9B8B0E124@iki.fi> Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 18:42:20 +0300 To: lemonade@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Subject: [lemonade] URLAUTH authorization mechanisms X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 15:42:32 -0000 Only INTERNAL mechanism was specified by RFC 4467, but it made it = possible to add more in future. But it doesn't look like there's any = easy way for a client to find out which mechanisms are supported? = Perhaps there should be an errata saying that URLMECH reply MUST be = returned by SELECT/EXAMINE if there are any other mechanisms besides = INTERNAL? From eburger@standardstrack.com Thu May 2 08:51:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5C3721F9017 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 08:51:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A8qFEuVmN6-l for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 08:51:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.246.244]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E8221F8FFA for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 08:51:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [141.161.20.235] (port=50338) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UXvmW-00032X-7D; Thu, 02 May 2013 08:51:19 -0700 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_507BE3EB-4202-473C-9779-51061AD52C61"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) From: Eric Burger In-Reply-To: <60D7D6E9-8A9C-4282-B5E5-F6F9B8B0E124@iki.fi> Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 11:50:48 -0400 Message-Id: <000E4CB9-7687-45F6-B50A-920114820841@standardstrack.com> References: <60D7D6E9-8A9C-4282-B5E5-F6F9B8B0E124@iki.fi> To: Timo Sirainen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz104.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: lemonade@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lemonade] URLAUTH authorization mechanisms X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 15:51:27 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_507BE3EB-4202-473C-9779-51061AD52C61 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Before we go too deep, I wold like to solve two problems with one email. = The overarching problem: does anyone care about lemonade? I have not = heard boo since 2009 about implementations. So, to find out who cares, = it would be interesting to find out who does. Can people let me know if = their information is correct, updated, or you are new to implementing = lemonade. See = http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade/Lemonade-Plans.html for what = I know about now. On May 2, 2013, at 11:42 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote: > Only INTERNAL mechanism was specified by RFC 4467, but it made it = possible to add more in future. But it doesn't look like there's any = easy way for a client to find out which mechanisms are supported? = Perhaps there should be an errata saying that URLMECH reply MUST be = returned by SELECT/EXAMINE if there are any other mechanisms besides = INTERNAL? >=20 > _______________________________________________ > lemonade mailing list > lemonade@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade > Supplemental Web Site: > http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade --Apple-Mail=_507BE3EB-4202-473C-9779-51061AD52C61 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRgotaAAoJEDY/T2tCIPW3ovwP/j1pByMcgKMfeE1eCZPEkvPW Ctfqf5oXaj9/bAziKLuLwnqnC3eI1XJuAfrSq0n/aEj6mQZjmL1DE+WmzbMAml5B cwKJRh/ZT5aMRRzr8YRHPF2UAqrqS5YlDFF94B2aQYcItK3re2GSw0twPUdlpk+h UVeMXmxBgZIJps+wcHI/6OYLe3Bc9Cn0sv2ksr/rmZS2rV/YaXPCT2WnFDO3iQVT w8/d8Dg2NCtRNmjimqffjCkaurqVkDxsgOqsHoY5/fik26XfVkv9rg7zIKuGBJlA H8UzCVmPz+gRqJyzs4fbw0xkI0Mmu/KqYNbfQN2LX+nh1NrKlTuTwUStI16alGA1 +dRNFHborE1DTIiCv7gJkTC16OlgZwBOcnh4VbRGy2Qe4AcJi1ds6w1q1C/+O2S3 Yw7hUa8ebOs2CauSF+rTA3D9OX5Ez7DeAdn9xzhkkV84z2eZgfICNE1ELOzTBArT TtOMUtB+rI+ChTfU6pNw/nEUJxBXCqA34ZBkqve10gnWBZAhjKQiQ5mvTKk5pPt4 3/FGjEBsQqyapDVLcDPBxKc3qHPeLbX3d5z8A0O6Z2gFBCIV+jHGDPhB9uOnDWQU YrG6xVZHWFX6pQfnH5WzLEo6EWkf4c5Wrl6pP1ohilh34LFSkvKXs1iqp+4bwN2j 6DfjLRrhqM6zmon0Xuaz =tgAo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_507BE3EB-4202-473C-9779-51061AD52C61-- From jkt@flaska.net Thu May 2 09:07:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 566B121F905C for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 09:07:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NWbHS1xKjDoL for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 09:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from latimerie.flaska.net (latimerie.flaska.net [IPv6:2a02:2b88:2:1::4a7:333]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D25421F9058 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 09:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by latimerie.flaska.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E51936301D; Thu, 2 May 2013 18:06:57 +0200 (CEST) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jan_Kundr=E1t?= To: Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 18:06:58 +0200 User-Agent: trojita/v0.3.92-157-g8dba79d; Qt/4.8.4; X11; Linux; MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <6af9969e-ba14-4d9b-8790-b553bbee0ce8@flaska.net> In-Reply-To: <000E4CB9-7687-45F6-B50A-920114820841@standardstrack.com> References: <60D7D6E9-8A9C-4282-B5E5-F6F9B8B0E124@iki.fi> <000E4CB9-7687-45F6-B50A-920114820841@standardstrack.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [lemonade] Re: URLAUTH authorization mechanisms X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 16:07:02 -0000 On Thursday, 2 May 2013 17:50:48 CEST, Eric Burger wrote:=0A> See =0A> = http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade/Lemonade-Plans.html =0A> fo= r what I know about now.=0A=0AHi Eric, that page refers to "phase 1", b= ut RFC5550 doesn't use that terminology anywhere. What is "phase 1"? Th= ere are some traces of that in a presentation from 2005 [1] which refer= s to the POSTADDRESS extension which is completely dead AFAIK. I don't = suppose it makes much sense to use these terms anymore.=0A=0AAnyway, it= looks like Trojit=C3=A1 ("vendor": KDE) supports all extensions I coul= d find in that "phase 1" presentation except POSTADDRESS and DSN.=0A=0A= I've tested CATENATE against Cyrus, a development version of Dovecot an= d against Isode. The full-blown "Lemonade trio" with URLAUTH and BURL w= as verified with Isode.=0A=0AWith kind regards,=0AJan=0A=0A[1] http://w= ww.ietf.org/proceedings/64/slides/lemonade-3/lemonade-3.ppt=0A=0A-- =0A= Trojit=C3=A1, a fast Qt IMAP e-mail client -- http://trojita.flaska.net= / From tss@iki.fi Thu May 2 09:12:05 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E803F21F909A for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 09:12:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.37 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.630, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i0VUTKxdCnXH for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 09:12:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dovecot.org (dovecot.org [193.210.130.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F60D21F90AC for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 09:12:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (vfw03.dovecot.fi [88.194.145.100]) by dovecot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6BB31AE87C0; Thu, 2 May 2013 19:11:59 +0300 (EEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) From: Timo Sirainen In-Reply-To: <000E4CB9-7687-45F6-B50A-920114820841@standardstrack.com> Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 19:12:03 +0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <94079EC6-C8EC-4E9D-919E-C26D0F33424B@iki.fi> References: <60D7D6E9-8A9C-4282-B5E5-F6F9B8B0E124@iki.fi> <000E4CB9-7687-45F6-B50A-920114820841@standardstrack.com> To: Eric Burger X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Cc: lemonade@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lemonade] URLAUTH authorization mechanisms X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 16:12:06 -0000 Dovecot v2.2 supports all of the required IMAP extensions in RFC 5550, = except for CONTEXT=3DSORT and CONVERT. CONTEXT=3DSORT is actually half = implemented, and probably will be fully at some point. I'm not sure = about CONVERT, although it probably isn't that much trouble to = implement. Dovecot v2.3 will also implement a new SMTP submission = server, which is planned to support all of the Lemonade SMTP extensions. For some other IMAP servers see http://imapwiki.org/Specs I know only one IMAP client that supports much of Lemonade: = http://trojita.flaska.net/ but maybe it slowly gets more popular when = more servers implement it. BTW. Dovecot's vendor in your web page isn't IKI (and has never been). = Nowadays it has a company, so it could be updated also to Dovecot, or to = its logo: http://dovecot.org/logo/ On 2.5.2013, at 18.50, Eric Burger wrote: > Before we go too deep, I wold like to solve two problems with one = email. The overarching problem: does anyone care about lemonade? I have = not heard boo since 2009 about implementations. So, to find out who = cares, it would be interesting to find out who does. Can people let me = know if their information is correct, updated, or you are new to = implementing lemonade. See = http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade/Lemonade-Plans.html for what = I know about now. >=20 > On May 2, 2013, at 11:42 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote: >=20 >> Only INTERNAL mechanism was specified by RFC 4467, but it made it = possible to add more in future. But it doesn't look like there's any = easy way for a client to find out which mechanisms are supported? = Perhaps there should be an errata saying that URLMECH reply MUST be = returned by SELECT/EXAMINE if there are any other mechanisms besides = INTERNAL? >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> lemonade mailing list >> lemonade@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade >> Supplemental Web Site: >> http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade >=20 From eburger@standardstrack.com Thu May 2 09:19:11 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6297021F8F69 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 09:19:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9GJ7W+gI7pVF for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 09:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.246.244]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC9B21F8F58 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 09:18:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [141.161.20.235] (port=50462) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UXwBv-0000rK-UP; Thu, 02 May 2013 09:18:54 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) From: Eric Burger In-Reply-To: <94079EC6-C8EC-4E9D-919E-C26D0F33424B@iki.fi> Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 12:17:07 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <60D7D6E9-8A9C-4282-B5E5-F6F9B8B0E124@iki.fi> <000E4CB9-7687-45F6-B50A-920114820841@standardstrack.com> <94079EC6-C8EC-4E9D-919E-C26D0F33424B@iki.fi> To: Timo Sirainen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz104.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: lemonade@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lemonade] URLAUTH authorization mechanisms X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 16:19:11 -0000 Rather than duplicating effort, I think I'll point to imapwiki. Here is = the Does Anyone Care question rephrased: Gmail and Exchange use none of = the lemonade extensions. Any idea if the Android client, iPhone Mail, or = RIM (BlackBerry) clients use lemonade? If the answer is No, then I fear = X.400 has more market share than lemonade. On May 2, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote: > Dovecot v2.2 supports all of the required IMAP extensions in RFC 5550, = except for CONTEXT=3DSORT and CONVERT. CONTEXT=3DSORT is actually half = implemented, and probably will be fully at some point. I'm not sure = about CONVERT, although it probably isn't that much trouble to = implement. Dovecot v2.3 will also implement a new SMTP submission = server, which is planned to support all of the Lemonade SMTP extensions. >=20 > For some other IMAP servers see http://imapwiki.org/Specs >=20 > I know only one IMAP client that supports much of Lemonade: = http://trojita.flaska.net/ but maybe it slowly gets more popular when = more servers implement it. >=20 > BTW. Dovecot's vendor in your web page isn't IKI (and has never been). = Nowadays it has a company, so it could be updated also to Dovecot, or to = its logo: http://dovecot.org/logo/ >=20 > On 2.5.2013, at 18.50, Eric Burger wrote: >=20 >> Before we go too deep, I wold like to solve two problems with one = email. The overarching problem: does anyone care about lemonade? I have = not heard boo since 2009 about implementations. So, to find out who = cares, it would be interesting to find out who does. Can people let me = know if their information is correct, updated, or you are new to = implementing lemonade. See = http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade/Lemonade-Plans.html for what = I know about now. >>=20 >> On May 2, 2013, at 11:42 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote: >>=20 >>> Only INTERNAL mechanism was specified by RFC 4467, but it made it = possible to add more in future. But it doesn't look like there's any = easy way for a client to find out which mechanisms are supported? = Perhaps there should be an errata saying that URLMECH reply MUST be = returned by SELECT/EXAMINE if there are any other mechanisms besides = INTERNAL? >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lemonade mailing list >>> lemonade@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade >>> Supplemental Web Site: >>> http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade >>=20 >=20 From jkt@flaska.net Thu May 2 09:40:06 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F63821F8F6D for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 09:40:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PIFwV2-1+yLE for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 09:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from latimerie.flaska.net (latimerie.flaska.net [IPv6:2a02:2b88:2:1::4a7:333]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9876D21F8F38 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 09:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by latimerie.flaska.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 407DF6301D; Thu, 2 May 2013 18:40:03 +0200 (CEST) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jan_Kundr=E1t?= To: Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 18:39:59 +0200 User-Agent: trojita/v0.3.92-157-g8dba79d; Qt/4.8.4; X11; Linux; MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <60D7D6E9-8A9C-4282-B5E5-F6F9B8B0E124@iki.fi> <000E4CB9-7687-45F6-B50A-920114820841@standardstrack.com> <94079EC6-C8EC-4E9D-919E-C26D0F33424B@iki.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [lemonade] Re: URLAUTH authorization mechanisms X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 16:40:06 -0000 On Thursday, 2 May 2013 18:17:07 CEST, Eric Burger wrote:=0A> Android c= lient=0A=0ANope. As of android-4.1.1_r3-35-g01c55fd (mid-2012, roughly)= , they only supported NAMESPACE, UIDPLUS and STARTTLS, nothing else -- = not even LITERAL+ or ESEARCH.=0A=0A> iPhone Mail=0A=0ACONDSTORE, ESEARC= H, COMPRESS and BURL are supported. As far as I know, as of mid-2012, Q= RESYNC or IDLE were not supported.=0A=0AWith kind regards,=0AJan=0A=0A-= - =0ATrojit=C3=A1, a fast Qt IMAP e-mail client -- http://trojita.flask= a.net/ From dave@cridland.net Thu May 2 10:39:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6DA21F8E6E for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 10:39:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.677 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dw270BsLysRt for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 10:39:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x22a.google.com (mail-ob0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C4AA21F8E5E for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 10:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id ef5so710877obb.1 for ; Thu, 02 May 2013 10:39:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=fcc9dz7/lB6fSwBsdT0HfpfnajypIIkVldvPCiIlLBs=; b=gfLcqY0BnI3Aiind6f0mD07xZh8aDfXfYJdWUyn/gNPPw7gqzCnXY0YUir5Tm6URkd 3ZpTPqujOEAbTeqzmoBfTpyKrRJcu/4wxQmTBs37uqPcl+pqifhjcxHNIrxX6wHpTjR9 5iXyzlH4ZPxiyJEqYCfQ7VWauSQhk+CtmZu2c= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=fcc9dz7/lB6fSwBsdT0HfpfnajypIIkVldvPCiIlLBs=; b=BClgtTYop0GO7pqU49hteCsvzO80NS085XiBxFjWhsMuIFl7D0MzlNxM8MR/JGsxKr Pqp5GNfA4SpV9SVywZT0HVEVs57/hfNvPqUqksBY9Bag7ePEwo6IWNnJMryjr4KBOdiJ 3dIreGVrPf8MuwxvFPNI1esbxi6KHOa+1Wv5w8rHYmHVXBR9uF6jCIJON3oqRxvRueyM 5qGfdFM+Al4LdPhnADJ2b2DLJFmdneN1TUhBWAQPyvHdhmWMnFIe6qyiaJkFqii/p5nv cyuesK2N+Bi0f9H03UcCdYRCw6RNuoDuSaPEOddQUaY/OsiEsN3K+PdqA5+Q3cUl8eGZ t63g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.131.237 with SMTP id op13mr447102oeb.107.1367516356529; Thu, 02 May 2013 10:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.13.200 with HTTP; Thu, 2 May 2013 10:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.13.200 with HTTP; Thu, 2 May 2013 10:39:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <60D7D6E9-8A9C-4282-B5E5-F6F9B8B0E124@iki.fi> <000E4CB9-7687-45F6-B50A-920114820841@standardstrack.com> <94079EC6-C8EC-4E9D-919E-C26D0F33424B@iki.fi> Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 18:39:16 +0100 Message-ID: From: Dave Cridland To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jan_Kundr=E1t?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b41cdaaa7e67a04dbbfb65b X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmuRWJHe9yrO6lGFLM/CO5Nd1gJ84XRsjvpuBVHYydNKS3aOyLA2zo4F97QnQHKUeTcQiHR Cc: lemonade@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lemonade] URLAUTH authorization mechanisms X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 17:39:17 -0000 --047d7b41cdaaa7e67a04dbbfb65b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Inky - http://inky.com - by Arcode will be implementing everything except convert, roughly. I think convert has been overtaken by events, really, whereas many of the others are still relevant and useful. I've not yet done a formal roadmap, though, so this remains off the top of my head, and subject to change. --047d7b41cdaaa7e67a04dbbfb65b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

Inky - http://inky.com - by Arcode will be implementing everything except convert, roughly. I think convert has been overtaken by events, really, whereas many of the others are still relevant and useful.

I've not yet done a formal roadmap, though, so this remains off the top of my head, and subject to change.

--047d7b41cdaaa7e67a04dbbfb65b-- From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Thu May 2 12:24:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189BD21F8D92 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 12:24:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.199, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 42gZ4SLpflKA for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 12:24:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from waldorf.isode.com (cl-125.lon-03.gb.sixxs.net [IPv6:2a00:14f0:e000:7c::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B84C021F8D70 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 12:24:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1367522665; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=95rECkWOg8SAKvj8nyvc2aprc8v/O3uzNQV9GxyGp64=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=DTWlE4+DDwdORrHxEu7X6yulSLSnaFiK+YfE/qjLt7Uk4X1YHUFxUMgmnFs0+ZOK/JnFJ3 wDO+xm10O7r1JaPvnV/JvM018SbS9dgqSykw7a/rRbDardrDDwgRUNZmQy+pB1Z/wm6979 MWT4Nl2EPj8Q60d62TWDR+LaAv/PYbE=; Received: from [172.16.1.29] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Thu, 2 May 2013 20:24:25 +0100 Message-ID: <5182BD1A.7040406@isode.com> Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 20:23:06 +0100 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 To: =?UTF-8?B?SmFuIEt1bmRyw6F0?= References: <60D7D6E9-8A9C-4282-B5E5-F6F9B8B0E124@iki.fi> <000E4CB9-7687-45F6-B50A-920114820841@standardstrack.com> <6af9969e-ba14-4d9b-8790-b553bbee0ce8@flaska.net> In-Reply-To: <6af9969e-ba14-4d9b-8790-b553bbee0ce8@flaska.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Cc: lemonade@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lemonade] URLAUTH authorization mechanisms X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 19:24:41 -0000 On 02/05/2013 17:06, Jan Kundr=C3=A1t wrote: > On Thursday, 2 May 2013 17:50:48 CEST, Eric Burger wrote: >> See http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade/Lemonade-Plans.html=20 >> for what I know about now. > > Hi Eric, that page refers to "phase 1", but RFC5550 doesn't use that=20 > terminology anywhere. What is "phase 1"? There are some traces of that=20 > in a presentation from 2005 [1] which refers to the POSTADDRESS=20 > extension which is completely dead AFAIK. I don't suppose it makes=20 > much sense to use these terms anymore. "Phase 1" refers to RFC 4550. POSTADDRESS was removed from it before=20 publication. From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Thu May 2 12:26:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B452421F8E4E for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 12:26:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.016 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.016 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iZMXHN5-mxQC for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 12:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from waldorf.isode.com (cl-125.lon-03.gb.sixxs.net [IPv6:2a00:14f0:e000:7c::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3C721F8D70 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 12:26:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1367522778; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=6xciG7Ae0MfACZonedwec3Zi8X0SABRnNZKKd7TxSEQ=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=nXE/Akg6mURQ1CyOgDGWc0H8TQ2MvIGqfeIm/kFrdiL10ktIDIHNmT75hDa8XL3nm7n9OI YaEe/HNYb3ZdmoKimTTZWwRntB5cpo1YUwaS4d8cDruyD0au9yso/UHEa2gY7XT6f0EPcE ODXe156lpSD3FLG+/w+UWLFEVFux46o=; Received: from [172.16.1.29] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Thu, 2 May 2013 20:26:18 +0100 Message-ID: <5182BDEF.6070501@isode.com> Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 20:26:39 +0100 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 To: Eric Burger References: <60D7D6E9-8A9C-4282-B5E5-F6F9B8B0E124@iki.fi> <000E4CB9-7687-45F6-B50A-920114820841@standardstrack.com> In-Reply-To: <000E4CB9-7687-45F6-B50A-920114820841@standardstrack.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: lemonade@ietf.org Subject: Re: [lemonade] URLAUTH authorization mechanisms X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 19:26:28 -0000 On 02/05/2013 16:50, Eric Burger wrote: > Before we go too deep, I wold like to solve two problems with one email. The overarching problem: does anyone care about lemonade? I have not heard boo since 2009 about implementations. So, to find out who cares, it would be interesting to find out who does. Can people let me know if their information is correct, updated, or you are new to implementing lemonade. See http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade/Lemonade-Plans.html for what I know about now. I think people do care about some subset of Profile Bis, they don't care much about the label. As far as updating your web page is concerned, Isode supports Profile Bis, minus the following: NOTIFY, CONVERT, CONTEXT=SORT, I18NLEVEL=1. From the list Isode doesn't support, we might look at NOTIFY, but no urgency until somebody asks for it. From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Thu May 2 12:29:13 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: lemonade@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B513221F8E96 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 12:29:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.892 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.892 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tH3EeD14ELZt for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 12:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-x230.google.com (mail-vb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8831C21F8E93 for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 12:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id q16so782714vbe.7 for ; Thu, 02 May 2013 12:29:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=DdZajqKAMOc8BCfzKpi/2WwWn1kM4lN19JBmJCKwYss=; b=pj2xzNBIy+pQnqCNbECOj+YewW5VVaam/tw1uU1JAuDW4MgKxP+IbP7r1+TCeFJh8z bRriEGYRpUX5B8euUezXFudT7Z8trI5w7umlLhaWAmslUCaGWoqrRPor3Hb0LyL7ZQkQ qhJuT5hdrXgUD4zAKB+TMifrlU/kehirDaY4F5VBPrFSqcA4RpjKIOFXECjofWOFGxCU qi0lYoT1bBaQwFEOtVluA6XhOoc4I8co3URDW/WL37uAvhr7UY849tRjcSqdHUXH3gFP ZgpdlpK05MzOqu13Ziuu4Tu5cyu9qt3J6YxdeHuz++RwJ2Nw5rMXLjH+cYPIRwXzLRJC /A0w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.230.130 with SMTP id sy2mr2669491vec.22.1367522946039; Thu, 02 May 2013 12:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.59.3.41 with HTTP; Thu, 2 May 2013 12:29:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <60D7D6E9-8A9C-4282-B5E5-F6F9B8B0E124@iki.fi> References: <60D7D6E9-8A9C-4282-B5E5-F6F9B8B0E124@iki.fi> Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 15:29:05 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: QZKHviXeg7c8fJJzFsgeZF6Iz7Y Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Timo Sirainen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments Subject: Re: [lemonade] URLAUTH authorization mechanisms X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 19:29:13 -0000 > Only INTERNAL mechanism was specified by RFC 4467, but it made it possible > to add more in future. But it doesn't look like there's any easy way for a client to > find out which mechanisms are supported? Perhaps there should be an errata > saying that URLMECH reply MUST be returned by SELECT/EXAMINE if there > are any other mechanisms besides INTERNAL? There's no need to do this with an errata report, and I would only Reject such a report anyway, because this isn't an erratum. Nothing at all needs to happen until there's a new mechanism, and then the specification for that mechanism can say what needs to be said, and it can "update" 4467. Barry