virtual domains question

[Ken Murchison]

Phil Howard wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 06:02:12PM -0400, Ken Murchison wrote:
> 
> | Phil Howard wrote:
> | >
> | > On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 12:29:31PM -0400, Ken Murchison wrote:
> | >
> | > | Phil Howard wrote:
> | > | >
> | > | > Cross department domain sharing.  Different departments would have
> | > | > their own domain names, but in some cases that sharing would go between
> | > | > specific people in different departments, hence different domains.
> | > |
> | > | Well, most of the code to do this is already there.  The complication
> | > | arises when trying to deal with users in the defaultdomain (unqualified
> | > | userids) and how to handle 'anyone' and 'anonymous' (how to
> | > | differentiate between anyone in a domain or anyone regardless of
> | > | domain.)
> | >
> | > I would presume a reference to a user w/o any domain qualification would
> | > (or should) have the same effect as logging in w/o any domain.  Whether
> | > that gets mapped to an actual domain, or simply accesses name hierarchy
> | > that has no domain, would be a detail.
> | >
> | > As for 'anyone' and 'anonymous' I'm not sure what to do.  I can see that
> | > one might assume when written w/o a domain that they apply to the same
> | > domain, as opposed to the default domain.
> |
> |
> | I thought about this some more while watching the golf, and I'm slowly
> | starting to recall more of the issues.  The biggest hurdle (as was the
> | case with altnamespace, unixhiersep and virtdomains) is LIST/LSUB.  If
> | we allow users to see mailboxes in other domains, how do these get
> | presented to the client?  What does the namespace look like?  Should we
> | make it optional? (LIST performance will suck if we have to iterate
> | through the entire mailbox list regardless of domain)
> 
> I can't answer that in terms of the current way it is done.  But had it
> been done the way I was originally thinking, then it might have worked
> like this:
> 
> host.com_example.user.tom -> becomes INBOX when login as tom at example.com
> 
> Then tom at example.com can see tom at example.net by some reference that
> works out to -> host.net_example.user.tom
> 
> I'm sure there are many other ways to do it.  But now that a mapping of
> user at fqdn is established, I guess you're stuck with it.


Huh?  I think you might be missing my point.  I _can_ provide the
functionality that you want in the server, the question is how to fit
this into the IMAP protocol itself.  I'm not going to explain all of the
issues in detail, if you care you can read RFC 3501 and RFC 2342 and
look at the source.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison     Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer     21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26      Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key--    http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp