193 lines
6.8 KiB
Plaintext
193 lines
6.8 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From brong at fastmail.fm Mon Jan 14 03:32:24 2013
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:50 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Is there some way to detect servers which
|
|
automatically add sent messages to the Sent mailbox?
|
|
In-Reply-To: <887FDCAF-16E0-4030-A4A3-1BA58554F038@apple.com>
|
|
References: <647C20F7-BB5D-47DD-BC89-3B0D903D2900@apple.com>
|
|
<7B9C4CD5-75ED-46F7-8AE4-C3415918E905@apple.com>
|
|
<83A6F18656334E6CA23106F9DB1C8EC1@gmail.com>
|
|
<E4D13318-11D2-41EF-979F-2840AF2AF9C9@apple.com>
|
|
<1358152426.27730.105.camel@innu>
|
|
<29D96F78-FC57-4AF5-8177-C71638D5DEB4@apple.com>
|
|
<CABa8R6seWwh3emtqPnYYCrh5v7BSOjh+H5gkkLmSj6KnK5rTbQ@mail.gmail.com>
|
|
<887FDCAF-16E0-4030-A4A3-1BA58554F038@apple.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <1358163144.24711.140661177295453.76384B37@webmail.messagingengine.com>
|
|
|
|
I have ranted about this at length about the state of this. I don't
|
|
think BURL is going to be a solution which gains wide adoption, though
|
|
I'd love to see a convincing argument from anyone who's rolled it out
|
|
to anything other than a corporate-style network where the clients,
|
|
servers and intermediate networks are all controlled by a single
|
|
organisation.
|
|
|
|
Fastmail has a configuration option which allows you to automatically
|
|
BCC all your outbound email to one or more other addresses, and one way
|
|
expose this is forwarding to an automatically created sieve rule which
|
|
files the copy directly into one of your own folders. We also don't
|
|
expose the existence of this anywhere.
|
|
|
|
I still think the sane option is to upload the message contents once
|
|
via IMAP and then have a command which is sent over the IMAP channel
|
|
saying to inject said message into an outbound email queue - meaning
|
|
that there's only a single connection channel required. The
|
|
interesting bits are, of course, spam controls. But so long as it goes
|
|
through similar controls to port 587 I think it's sane.
|
|
|
|
Anyway - we don't turn it on automatically, so users are likely to only
|
|
turn it on once they know what their client does.
|
|
|
|
Bron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013, at 09:15 PM, Ian Anderson wrote:
|
|
|
|
It does make the whole sending process take twice as long. The only
|
|
think I can think of protocol wise is an extended SMTP status code from
|
|
the DATA command or an IMAP capability, neither of which are super
|
|
wonderful. =\
|
|
|
|
Ian
|
|
On Jan 14, 2013, at 2:12 AM, Brandon Long <[1]blong@google.com> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Gmail definitely does this, though as long as your message is well
|
|
formed when sending via msa (date and messageid headers set), the
|
|
appended copy should just be considered a DUP, so no two copies.
|
|
Unnecessary bandwidth, I guess.
|
|
|
|
Nothing we do to indicate this protocol wise, but I'm open to
|
|
suggestions.
|
|
|
|
Brandon
|
|
|
|
On Jan 14, 2013 12:38 AM, "Ian Anderson" <[2]iana@apple.com> wrote:
|
|
|
|
I haven?t tested it, but I hear that FastMail, Tuffmail, Gmail, 126,
|
|
and 163 all do this. (Some of those may have since stopped, my
|
|
data?s a bit old.)
|
|
Ian
|
|
On Jan 14, 2013, at 12:33 AM, Timo Sirainen <[3]tss@iki.fi> wrote:
|
|
> I doubt you could get such DATA response a) standardized and
|
|
especially
|
|
> b) implemented by server admins. Or are you thinking about some
|
|
specific
|
|
> large email provider that does this? I'm not aware of any provider
|
|
that
|
|
> does this.
|
|
>
|
|
> I think BURL is going to become much more available at least in
|
|
server
|
|
> side within a few years.
|
|
>
|
|
> On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 00:05 -0800, Ian Anderson wrote:
|
|
>> Oh yeah, I didn?t think about BURL. Bleargh. Searching for the
|
|
>> message in the Sent mailbox after sending seems rather error
|
|
prone.
|
|
>> What if it takes ten minutes for the message to show up
|
|
>> automatically? Maybe an extended SMTP status code from the DATA
|
|
>> command would make sense on servers that are going to do the
|
|
append
|
|
>> for you though?
|
|
>>
|
|
>>
|
|
>> Ian
|
|
>>
|
|
>> On Jan 13, 2013, at 5:34 PM, Ho? V. Dinh
|
|
<[4]dinh.viet.hoa@gmail.com>
|
|
>> wrote:
|
|
>>
|
|
>>> Maybe you could detect the IMAP server you're dealing with and
|
|
>>> behaves accordingly to its behaviour.
|
|
>>> An other solution could be to FETCH in the Sent mailbox after
|
|
the
|
|
>>> mail has been sent.
|
|
>>> And match the message based on the Message-ID, then, decide
|
|
whether
|
|
>>> you really need to APPEND the message.
|
|
>>>
|
|
>>>
|
|
>>> --
|
|
>>> Ho? V. Dinh
|
|
>>
|
|
>>
|
|
>> On Jan 13, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Dave Cridland <[5]dave@cridland.net>
|
|
wrote:
|
|
>>
|
|
>>> No, there isn't, as far as I know. You can, on some systems,
|
|
tell
|
|
>>> which is the Sent mailbox, and you could watch it for a new
|
|
message,
|
|
>>> I suppose. I bet systems supporting special use mailboxes don't
|
|
do
|
|
>>> the automatic append, though.
|
|
>>>
|
|
>>> On other systems, the "correct" method for sending a message is
|
|
to
|
|
>>> first append it, and then submit by BURL.
|
|
>>>
|
|
>>> Finally, Alexey had a postaddress extension which allowed you to
|
|
do
|
|
>>> the append by using a special address during submission.
|
|
>>>
|
|
>>> Dave.
|
|
>>>
|
|
>>
|
|
>>> On Sunday, January 13, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Ian Anderson wrote:
|
|
>>>> I suppose this might be more likely as an SMTP response code
|
|
>>>> (though I can?t find a defined one) than an IMAP capability or
|
|
>>>> some such, but maybe someone on this list knows anyway?
|
|
>>>> <wishful_thinking>
|
|
>>>>
|
|
>>>>
|
|
>>>> Ian
|
|
>>>>
|
|
>>>>
|
|
>>>> On Jan 13, 2013, at 4:31 PM, Ian Anderson <[6]iana@apple.com>
|
|
wrote:
|
|
>>>>
|
|
>>>>
|
|
>>>>> I?ve noticed that in some systems when you send a message via
|
|
>>>>> SMTP, it will put a copy in the user?s Sent mailbox. Most of
|
|
>>>>> them don?t however, necessitating that I do an IMAP APPEND to
|
|
>>>>> get the message in Sent. Is there a good/any way to tell when
|
|
>>>>> the APPEND is necessary? Right now I?m doing it all the time
|
|
>>>>> which is resulting in double copies in the Sent mailbox for
|
|
>>>>> systems that do it automatically.
|
|
>>>>>
|
|
>>>>>
|
|
>>>>> Ian
|
|
_______________________________________________
|
|
Imap-protocol mailing list
|
|
[7]Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
[8]http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
|
|
|
|
_______________________________________________
|
|
Imap-protocol mailing list
|
|
[9]Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
[10]http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
|
|
|
|
Email had 1 attachment:
|
|
* smime.p7s
|
|
6k (application/pkcs7-signature)
|
|
|
|
References
|
|
|
|
1. mailto:blong@google.com
|
|
2. mailto:iana@apple.com
|
|
3. mailto:tss@iki.fi
|
|
4. mailto:dinh.viet.hoa@gmail.com
|
|
5. mailto:dave@cridland.net
|
|
6. mailto:iana@apple.com
|
|
7. mailto:Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
8. http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
|
|
9. mailto:Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
10. http://mailman2.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/20130114/218b7230/attachment.html>
|