On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:10:37PM -0800, Mark Crispin wrote: > On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Dan White wrote: > >I don't think the disconnected state really matters. The email could just > >sit in a local queue until it's reconnected to the network, at which point > >it could be send directly to the recipient's lmtp server (which makes > >better sense than direct imap, now that I think about it). > > What if the network you are on requires you to use their servers, and > enforces that requirement through various evil means? Their policy may > allow external traffic going in, even from a remote IMAP server, but not > out. They even put themselves as a MITM on SSL/TLS (not that anyone pays > attention to cert validation messages anyway).
Sounds pretty easy to do with a nice proxyable protocol, they just block it, and you need to use a client which supports sending to an SMTP server. Hopefully a relatively rare case. Rarely enough, I agree with the rest of what you said, so I won't leave it inline with a bunch of m3t00. Bron. _______________________________________________ imap5 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5
