42 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
42 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From asuth at mozilla.com Fri Mar 7 17:13:30 2014
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Andrew Sutherland <asuth@mozilla.com>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:52 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Is it okay/common for servers to ignore
|
|
commands sent before the greeting? (gmail seems to?)
|
|
In-Reply-To: <4012E0DA-1598-47CA-804E-9ED75CE22327@iki.fi>
|
|
References: <5319E04C.3070105@mozilla.com> <cfe80347-ed90-4e5b-a69a-93f99e2158c4@flaska.net>
|
|
<4012E0DA-1598-47CA-804E-9ED75CE22327@iki.fi>
|
|
Message-ID: <531A6EBA.5000307@mozilla.com>
|
|
|
|
On 03/07/2014 12:27 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
|
|
> On 7.3.2014, at 18.01, Jan Kundr?t <jkt@flaska.net> wrote:
|
|
>
|
|
>> Interesting. What my client is doing is patiently waiting for the initial response and checking whether the capability list is passed in there as a response code.
|
|
|
|
Our IMAP implementation has not gotten a lot of love. We started from
|
|
https://github.com/mscdex/node-imap/ as a base and this was simply its
|
|
default behavior which worked, so we ran with it. We have a backlog of
|
|
things to do to improve our IMAP implementation, but we do want
|
|
connection setup to be as fast as possible so it's nice to know the
|
|
right thing to do when correcting immediate issues and longer term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
> I think the ideal solution would be for everyone to start sending the CAPABILITY in the initial reply. Dovecot v2.x actually sends only a truncated CAPABILITY reply that contains only the extensions relevant to client before login. If you want to be sure not to break any clients, you could still do that and send the full capabilities list as a reply to the CAPABILITY command. The clients that understand the initial reply will also understand the updated OK [CAPABILITY ..] reply to LOGIN/AUTHENTICATE, while those that don't understand it will just request the CAPABILITY command directly.
|
|
|
|
Yes, dovecot's behavior here is very nice. We do understand and want to
|
|
continue to understand LOGINDISABLED so we can treat the situation as an
|
|
appropriate type of transient failure, so it's good for us to have that
|
|
information.
|
|
|
|
However, if a server such as dovecot does this and we have persisted
|
|
this knowledge and are on an imaps/993/initial-TLS connection, would it
|
|
then be okay for us to attempt our login as our first step before having
|
|
seen the greeting? Assuming the server always sends the greeting
|
|
regardless of our initial command, we can drop the connection and/or
|
|
ignore the login failure when we see that there was a LOGINDISABLED command.
|
|
|
|
Thanks,
|
|
Andrew
|
|
|