Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
To: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 09:23:02 +0200
List-Id: <ietf-imapext.imc.org>

I wrote:
> Yes, they work, but they're not getting implemented, for whatever reason.

PS: By implemented I meant by clients, not servers, example clients or 
testbeds.

Arnt

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 08:52:13 +0200
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Organization: Me, http://arnt.gulbrandsen.priv.no
To: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

On 07/07/2010 01:06 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
>
> We have a complete implementation of the trio, along with an example
> client for the iPhone that uses it. They work just fine.

Yes, they work, but they're not getting implemented, for whatever reason.

IMO a send draft should be allowed to go forward, if its authors make a 
case that it'll be implemented when the trio wasn't.

Arnt

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 18:27:24 -0700
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
From: Daniel Keen <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Apple has implemented it to Dovecot and Postfix (although the patch has not been integrated to either one, yet). Presumably also to iPhone at some point (I've no knowledge). So maybe they're not dead yet.

No, it hasn't been implemented on the iOS devices.

D

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 18:04:35 -0700
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
From: Daniel Keen <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Apple has implemented it to Dovecot and Postfix (although the patch has not been integrated to either one, yet). Presumably also to iPhone at some point (I've no knowledge). So maybe they're not dead yet.

No, it hasn't been implemented on the iOS devices.

D

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:06:14 -0400
From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

We have a complete implementation of the trio, along with an example 
client for the iPhone that uses it. They work just fine.

     Tony Hansen
     [email-masked]

On 7/6/2010 5:26 PM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>
> On 07/06/2010 10:38 PM, Philip Guenther wrote:
>> I believe that draft was input to the discussion that then occurred 
>> on the
>> lemonade mailing list and in face-to-face meetings, where it was
>> eventually concluded that doing submission directly inside IMAP is the
>> Wrong Thing for a number of reasons.  From that came the 'trio', RFCs
>> 4467-4469, which avoided those issues.
>
> The trio also avoided being implemented, though, so I wonder if the 
> decision was the right one...
>
> Arnt
>

Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
From: Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 23:08:17 +0100
Cc: Philip Guenther <[email-masked]>, "=?iso-8859-1?Q?M._Karpel=E8s?=" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]

On 6.7.2010, at 22.26, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> On 07/06/2010 10:38 PM, Philip Guenther wrote:
>> I believe that draft was input to the discussion that then occurred on the
>> lemonade mailing list and in face-to-face meetings, where it was
>> eventually concluded that doing submission directly inside IMAP is the
>> Wrong Thing for a number of reasons.  From that came the 'trio', RFCs
>> 4467-4469, which avoided those issues.
> 
> The trio also avoided being implemented, though, so I wonder if the decision was the right one...

Apple has implemented it to Dovecot and Postfix (although the patch has not been integrated to either one, yet). Presumably also to iPhone at some point (I've no knowledge). So maybe they're not dead yet.

Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
From: Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 23:05:25 +0100
Cc: [email-masked]
To: Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]

On 6.7.2010, at 19.12, Maxim Masiutin wrote:

>  Do you know any rfc draft on an IMAP extension that allows an IMAP
>  client  to  avoid  using  SMTP  to sending a message? That extension
>  should  have  provided  a  command for the client to tell the server
>  what message to send from a mailbox? Thank you in advance.

Is it really that you want to avoid SMTP protocol, or you just want to avoid a new connection to another port? For Dovecot a few people wrote XEXEC command plugin a while ago for executing "external programs", and one example for that was SMTP. http://wiki.dovecot.org/Plugins/xexec

I'm not hugely interested in any kind of a send-mail-over-IMAP extension, but XEXEC-kind of an interface where you still talk SMTP seems like a better idea to me than converting full SMTP syntax over to IMAP.

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 23:26:49 +0200
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Organization: Me, http://arnt.gulbrandsen.priv.no
To: Philip Guenther <[email-masked]>
Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?q?M=2E_Karpel=E8s?= <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

On 07/06/2010 10:38 PM, Philip Guenther wrote:
> I believe that draft was input to the discussion that then occurred on the
> lemonade mailing list and in face-to-face meetings, where it was
> eventually concluded that doing submission directly inside IMAP is the
> Wrong Thing for a number of reasons.  From that came the 'trio', RFCs
> 4467-4469, which avoided those issues.

The trio also avoided being implemented, though, so I wonder if the 
decision was the right one...

Arnt

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:38:07 -0700
From: Philip Guenther <[email-masked]>
To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?M=2E_Karpel=E8s?= <[email-masked]>
cc: [email-masked], Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, M. Karpelès wrote:
...
> I just had a look at this draft as we have a mail server (including 
> imap) in which we'd be interested to implement this kind of feature, 
> however this draft only list possible ways of achieving message 
> submission over imap and does not define which one should be used, nor 
> how.

I believe that draft was input to the discussion that then occurred on the 
lemonade mailing list and in face-to-face meetings, where it was 
eventually concluded that doing submission directly inside IMAP is the 
Wrong Thing for a number of reasons.  From that came the 'trio', RFCs 
4467-4469, which avoided those issues.

If you have concerns about this then you should review the lemonade 
mailing list archive *before* reopening the discussion or starting a new 
proposal, or else you'll be arguing from a position of ignorance.  There 
were strong proponents on both sides of the discussion when this was being 
considered and yet the consensus, as I recall, was strongly for the models 
supported by the RFCs that were published.

Philip Guenther

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 23:29:34 +0300
From: Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
Organization: Ritlabs
To: "=?utf-8?Q?M._Karpel=C3=A8s?=" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

Hello!

Our server and the client support the following extension. The above
text is "google" translation from Russian into English because we
wrote  this internal memo in Russian. Should we edit it to make proper
English,  add  the required formal information and submit it as draft?
At least a pair of software support it.

IMAP SEND

Extension SEND is supported by the servers, which return Â«SENDÂ» in the
list of capabilities. Extension SEND introduces two new commands: SEND
and UID SEND. Also introduces a new response SEND. SEND command is
allowed only in the Selected State.

SEND Command

Arguments: message set

Data: untagged responses: SEND

Result: OK - send completed
            NO - send failure (e.g. permission denied)
            BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid

SEND command sends message with the specified message sequence
numbers. The addresses of the sender and recipient are taken from the
message headers. This command returns untagged response SEND for each
of these messages.

Example:
C: A003 SEND 1:3
S: * 1 SEND (3001 OK NIL)
S: * 2 SEND (3002 NO ("RCPT TO" "[email-masked]" "550 User not found"))
S: * 3 SEND (3003 OK NIL)
S: A003 OK SEND completed

UID SEND Command

Arguments: message set

Data: untagged responses: SEND

Result: OK - send completed
            NO - send failure (e.g. permission denied)
            BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid

UID SEND command is similar to the SEND, except that instead of messages sequence numbers will have their uids.

SEND Response

Contents: serial number and UID the message and send the result

In response the serial number of the message, its UID and the result of sending the message. If sending fails, the team indicated that caused the error, its arguments and SMTP response.

Example:
S: * 23 SEND (143 OK NIL)
S: * 25 SEND (147 NO ("DATA" "" "452 Insufficient system storage"))

send_command:: = "SEND" SPACE set

send_response:: = seq_num SPACE "SEND" SPACE "(" uid_num SPACE send_result ")"

seq_num:: = nz_number
;; Message sequential number

uid_num:: = nz_number
;; Message UID

send_result:: = ("OK" nil) / ("NO" "(" err_cmd SPACE err_params SPACE err_resp ")")

err_cmd:: = string
;; SMTP command ("MAIL FROM", "RCPT TO", "DATA")

err_params:: = string
;; SMTP command parameters

err_resp:: = string
;; SMTP response

-- 
Best regards,
 Maxim                            mailto:[email-masked]

Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
From: "M." =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Karpel=E8s?= <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
Organization: ooKoo.org
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 04:33:13 +0900
Sender: [email-masked]

Hi,

Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 Ã  21:39 +0300, Maxim Masiutin a Ã©crit :
> Hello Dan,
> 
> Tuesday, July 6, 2010, 9:35:30 PM, you wrote:
> 
> > Perhaps this one?
> 
> >    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lemonade-submit-01
> 
> Thank  you!  Do you know any imap server that supports it, so we would
> be able to test our client against this server?

I just had a look at this draft as we have a mail server (including
imap) in which we'd be interested to implement this kind of feature,
however this draft only list possible ways of achieving message
submission over imap and does not define which one should be used, nor
how.

I personally like the part <4.1.4. "IMAP Push" Using Proxy Model> with a
mix of <4.1.3. "IMAP Push" Using APPEND> when it comes to composing the
mail.

When the client instructs the IMAP server to submit the message, the
imap server connects to the local smtp to send the message (or directly
appends to the mail queue if possible) and returns success to the SUBMIT
(or whatever it gets called) command only once the message was appended
to the local queue. As it's the local queue this process should never
take more than a few seconds (and not the 20 minutes described in the
RFC).

Anyway this draft cannot be implemented as it does not contain any
implementation details. If there is no better draft I'd suggest drafting
one of the 4 methods after discussing which one seems better (I
personally prefer the one described in 4.1.4 better as it does not
require use of annotate field to pass an enveloppe).

Mark

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 21:39:02 +0300
From: Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
Organization: Ritlabs
To: Dan Karp <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

Hello Dan,

Tuesday, July 6, 2010, 9:35:30 PM, you wrote:

> Perhaps this one?

>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lemonade-submit-01

Thank  you!  Do you know any imap server that supports it, so we would
be able to test our client against this server?

-- 
Best regards,
 Maxim                            mailto:[email-masked]

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 21:29:05 +0300
From: Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
Organization: Ritlabs
To: Dan Karp <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

Hello Dan,

We develop a mail client and a mail server and our software already
supports a protocol, but when we wanted to submit our draft, we were
refused because a draft did already exists. Could you please send me
all these all drafts, maybe we will adjust our software to these
drafts or will publish our own draft?

-- 
Best regards,
 Maxim                            mailto:[email-masked]

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 11:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Karp <[email-masked]>
To: Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

> Do you know any rfc draft on an IMAP extension that allows an IMAP
> client to avoid using SMTP to sending a message? That extension
> should have provided a command for the client to tell the server
> what message to send from a mailbox? Thank you in advance.

One gets proposed every now and then, but none are active
and none have got any traction.

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 21:12:56 +0300
From: Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
Organization: Ritlabs
To: [email-masked]
Subject: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

Hello,

  Do you know any rfc draft on an IMAP extension that allows an IMAP
  client  to  avoid  using  SMTP  to sending a message? That extension
  should  have  provided  a  command for the client to tell the server
  what message to send from a mailbox? Thank you in advance.

-- 
Best regards,
 Maxim                          mailto:[email-masked]

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 09:23:02 +0200
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Organization: Me, http://arnt.gulbrandsen.priv.no
To: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

I wrote:
> Yes, they work, but they're not getting implemented, for whatever reason.

PS: By implemented I meant by clients, not servers, example clients or 
testbeds.

Arnt

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 08:52:13 +0200
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Organization: Me, http://arnt.gulbrandsen.priv.no
To: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

On 07/07/2010 01:06 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
>
> We have a complete implementation of the trio, along with an example
> client for the iPhone that uses it. They work just fine.

Yes, they work, but they're not getting implemented, for whatever reason.

IMO a send draft should be allowed to go forward, if its authors make a 
case that it'll be implemented when the trio wasn't.

Arnt

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 18:27:24 -0700
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
From: Daniel Keen <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Apple has implemented it to Dovecot and Postfix (although the patch has not been integrated to either one, yet). Presumably also to iPhone at some point (I've no knowledge). So maybe they're not dead yet.

No, it hasn't been implemented on the iOS devices.

D

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 18:04:35 -0700
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
From: Daniel Keen <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Apple has implemented it to Dovecot and Postfix (although the patch has not been integrated to either one, yet). Presumably also to iPhone at some point (I've no knowledge). So maybe they're not dead yet.

No, it hasn't been implemented on the iOS devices.

D

Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:06:14 -0400
From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

We have a complete implementation of the trio, along with an example 
client for the iPhone that uses it. They work just fine.

     Tony Hansen
     [email-masked]

On 7/6/2010 5:26 PM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
>
> On 07/06/2010 10:38 PM, Philip Guenther wrote:
>> I believe that draft was input to the discussion that then occurred 
>> on the
>> lemonade mailing list and in face-to-face meetings, where it was
>> eventually concluded that doing submission directly inside IMAP is the
>> Wrong Thing for a number of reasons.  From that came the 'trio', RFCs
>> 4467-4469, which avoided those issues.
>
> The trio also avoided being implemented, though, so I wonder if the 
> decision was the right one...
>
> Arnt
>

Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
From: Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 23:08:17 +0100
Cc: Philip Guenther <[email-masked]>, "=?iso-8859-1?Q?M._Karpel=E8s?=" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]

On 6.7.2010, at 22.26, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> On 07/06/2010 10:38 PM, Philip Guenther wrote:
>> I believe that draft was input to the discussion that then occurred on the
>> lemonade mailing list and in face-to-face meetings, where it was
>> eventually concluded that doing submission directly inside IMAP is the
>> Wrong Thing for a number of reasons.  From that came the 'trio', RFCs
>> 4467-4469, which avoided those issues.
> 
> The trio also avoided being implemented, though, so I wonder if the decision was the right one...

Apple has implemented it to Dovecot and Postfix (although the patch has not been integrated to either one, yet). Presumably also to iPhone at some point (I've no knowledge). So maybe they're not dead yet.

Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
From: Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 23:05:25 +0100
Cc: [email-masked]
To: Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
Sender: [email-masked]

On 6.7.2010, at 19.12, Maxim Masiutin wrote:

>  Do you know any rfc draft on an IMAP extension that allows an IMAP
>  client  to  avoid  using  SMTP  to sending a message? That extension
>  should  have  provided  a  command for the client to tell the server
>  what message to send from a mailbox? Thank you in advance.

Is it really that you want to avoid SMTP protocol, or you just want to avoid a new connection to another port? For Dovecot a few people wrote XEXEC command plugin a while ago for executing "external programs", and one example for that was SMTP. http://wiki.dovecot.org/Plugins/xexec

I'm not hugely interested in any kind of a send-mail-over-IMAP extension, but XEXEC-kind of an interface where you still talk SMTP seems like a better idea to me than converting full SMTP syntax over to IMAP.

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 23:26:49 +0200
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Organization: Me, http://arnt.gulbrandsen.priv.no
To: Philip Guenther <[email-masked]>
Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?q?M=2E_Karpel=E8s?= <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

On 07/06/2010 10:38 PM, Philip Guenther wrote:
> I believe that draft was input to the discussion that then occurred on the
> lemonade mailing list and in face-to-face meetings, where it was
> eventually concluded that doing submission directly inside IMAP is the
> Wrong Thing for a number of reasons.  From that came the 'trio', RFCs
> 4467-4469, which avoided those issues.

The trio also avoided being implemented, though, so I wonder if the 
decision was the right one...

Arnt

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:38:07 -0700
From: Philip Guenther <[email-masked]>
To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?M=2E_Karpel=E8s?= <[email-masked]>
cc: [email-masked], Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, M. Karpelès wrote:
...
> I just had a look at this draft as we have a mail server (including 
> imap) in which we'd be interested to implement this kind of feature, 
> however this draft only list possible ways of achieving message 
> submission over imap and does not define which one should be used, nor 
> how.

I believe that draft was input to the discussion that then occurred on the 
lemonade mailing list and in face-to-face meetings, where it was 
eventually concluded that doing submission directly inside IMAP is the 
Wrong Thing for a number of reasons.  From that came the 'trio', RFCs 
4467-4469, which avoided those issues.

If you have concerns about this then you should review the lemonade 
mailing list archive *before* reopening the discussion or starting a new 
proposal, or else you'll be arguing from a position of ignorance.  There 
were strong proponents on both sides of the discussion when this was being 
considered and yet the consensus, as I recall, was strongly for the models 
supported by the RFCs that were published.

Philip Guenther

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 23:29:34 +0300
From: Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
Organization: Ritlabs
To: "=?utf-8?Q?M._Karpel=C3=A8s?=" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

Hello!

Our server and the client support the following extension. The above
text is "google" translation from Russian into English because we
wrote  this internal memo in Russian. Should we edit it to make proper
English,  add  the required formal information and submit it as draft?
At least a pair of software support it.

IMAP SEND

Extension SEND is supported by the servers, which return Â«SENDÂ» in the
list of capabilities. Extension SEND introduces two new commands: SEND
and UID SEND. Also introduces a new response SEND. SEND command is
allowed only in the Selected State.

SEND Command

Arguments: message set

Data: untagged responses: SEND

Result: OK - send completed
            NO - send failure (e.g. permission denied)
            BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid

SEND command sends message with the specified message sequence
numbers. The addresses of the sender and recipient are taken from the
message headers. This command returns untagged response SEND for each
of these messages.

Example:
C: A003 SEND 1:3
S: * 1 SEND (3001 OK NIL)
S: * 2 SEND (3002 NO ("RCPT TO" "[email-masked]" "550 User not found"))
S: * 3 SEND (3003 OK NIL)
S: A003 OK SEND completed

UID SEND Command

Arguments: message set

Data: untagged responses: SEND

Result: OK - send completed
            NO - send failure (e.g. permission denied)
            BAD - command unknown or arguments invalid

UID SEND command is similar to the SEND, except that instead of messages sequence numbers will have their uids.

SEND Response

Contents: serial number and UID the message and send the result

In response the serial number of the message, its UID and the result of sending the message. If sending fails, the team indicated that caused the error, its arguments and SMTP response.

Example:
S: * 23 SEND (143 OK NIL)
S: * 25 SEND (147 NO ("DATA" "" "452 Insufficient system storage"))

send_command:: = "SEND" SPACE set

send_response:: = seq_num SPACE "SEND" SPACE "(" uid_num SPACE send_result ")"

seq_num:: = nz_number
;; Message sequential number

uid_num:: = nz_number
;; Message UID

send_result:: = ("OK" nil) / ("NO" "(" err_cmd SPACE err_params SPACE err_resp ")")

err_cmd:: = string
;; SMTP command ("MAIL FROM", "RCPT TO", "DATA")

err_params:: = string
;; SMTP command parameters

err_resp:: = string
;; SMTP response

-- 
Best regards,
 Maxim                            mailto:[email-masked]

Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
From: "M." =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Karpel=E8s?= <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
Organization: ooKoo.org
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 04:33:13 +0900
Sender: [email-masked]

Hi,

Le mardi 06 juillet 2010 Ã  21:39 +0300, Maxim Masiutin a Ã©crit :
> Hello Dan,
> 
> Tuesday, July 6, 2010, 9:35:30 PM, you wrote:
> 
> > Perhaps this one?
> 
> >    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lemonade-submit-01
> 
> Thank  you!  Do you know any imap server that supports it, so we would
> be able to test our client against this server?

I just had a look at this draft as we have a mail server (including
imap) in which we'd be interested to implement this kind of feature,
however this draft only list possible ways of achieving message
submission over imap and does not define which one should be used, nor
how.

I personally like the part <4.1.4. "IMAP Push" Using Proxy Model> with a
mix of <4.1.3. "IMAP Push" Using APPEND> when it comes to composing the
mail.

When the client instructs the IMAP server to submit the message, the
imap server connects to the local smtp to send the message (or directly
appends to the mail queue if possible) and returns success to the SUBMIT
(or whatever it gets called) command only once the message was appended
to the local queue. As it's the local queue this process should never
take more than a few seconds (and not the 20 minutes described in the
RFC).

Anyway this draft cannot be implemented as it does not contain any
implementation details. If there is no better draft I'd suggest drafting
one of the 4 methods after discussing which one seems better (I
personally prefer the one described in 4.1.4 better as it does not
require use of annotate field to pass an enveloppe).

Mark

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 21:39:02 +0300
From: Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
Organization: Ritlabs
To: Dan Karp <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

Hello Dan,

Tuesday, July 6, 2010, 9:35:30 PM, you wrote:

> Perhaps this one?

>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lemonade-submit-01

Thank  you!  Do you know any imap server that supports it, so we would
be able to test our client against this server?

-- 
Best regards,
 Maxim                            mailto:[email-masked]

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 21:29:05 +0300
From: Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
Organization: Ritlabs
To: Dan Karp <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

Hello Dan,

We develop a mail client and a mail server and our software already
supports a protocol, but when we wanted to submit our draft, we were
refused because a draft did already exists. Could you please send me
all these all drafts, maybe we will adjust our software to these
drafts or will publish our own draft?

-- 
Best regards,
 Maxim                            mailto:[email-masked]

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 11:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Karp <[email-masked]>
To: Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

> Do you know any rfc draft on an IMAP extension that allows an IMAP
> client to avoid using SMTP to sending a message? That extension
> should have provided a command for the client to tell the server
> what message to send from a mailbox? Thank you in advance.

One gets proposed every now and then, but none are active
and none have got any traction.

Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 21:12:56 +0300
From: Maxim Masiutin <[email-masked]>
Organization: Ritlabs
To: [email-masked]
Subject: IMAP client sends messages without SMTP
Sender: [email-masked]

Hello,

  Do you know any rfc draft on an IMAP extension that allows an IMAP
  client  to  avoid  using  SMTP  to sending a message? That extension
  should  have  provided  a  command for the client to tell the server
  what message to send from a mailbox? Thank you in advance.

-- 
Best regards,
 Maxim                          mailto:[email-masked]