the members must currently all be addresses of local accounts.
a message sent to an alias is accepted if at least one of the members accepts
it. if no members accepts it (e.g. due to bad reputation of sender), the
message is rejected.
if a message is submitted to both an alias addresses and to recipients that are
members of the alias in an smtp transaction, the message will be delivered to
such members only once. the same applies if the address in the message
from-header is the address of a member: that member won't receive the message
(they sent it). this prevents duplicate messages.
aliases have three configuration options:
- PostPublic: whether anyone can send through the alias, or only members.
members-only lists can be useful inside organizations for internal
communication. public lists can be useful for support addresses.
- ListMembers: whether members can see the addresses of other members. this can
be seen in the account web interface. in the future, we could export this in
other ways, so clients can expand the list.
- AllowMsgFrom: whether messages can be sent through the alias with the alias
address used in the message from-header. the webmail knows it can use that
address, and will use it as from-address when replying to a message sent to
that address.
ideas for the future:
- allow external addresses as members. still with some restrictions, such as
requiring a valid dkim-signature so delivery has a chance to succeed. will
also need configuration of an admin that can receive any bounces.
- allow specifying specific members who can sent through the list (instead of
all members).
for github issue #57 by hmfaysal.
also relevant for #99 by naturalethic.
thanks to damir & marin from sartura for discussing requirements/features.
the http basic auth we had was very simple to reason about, and to implement.
but it has a major downside:
there is no way to logout, browsers keep sending credentials. ideally, browsers
themselves would show a button to stop sending credentials.
a related downside: the http auth mechanism doesn't indicate for which server
paths the credentials are.
another downside: the original password is sent to the server with each
request. though sending original passwords to web servers seems to be
considered normal.
our new approach uses session cookies, along with csrf values when we can. the
sessions are server-side managed, automatically extended on each use. this
makes it easy to invalidate sessions and keeps the frontend simpler (than with
long- vs short-term sessions and refreshing). the cookies are httponly,
samesite=strict, scoped to the path of the web interface. cookies are set
"secure" when set over https. the cookie is set by a successful call to Login.
a call to Logout invalidates a session. changing a password invalidates all
sessions for a user, but keeps the session with which the password was changed
alive. the csrf value is also random, and associated with the session cookie.
the csrf must be sent as header for api calls, or as parameter for direct form
posts (where we cannot set a custom header). rest-like calls made directly by
the browser, e.g. for images, don't have a csrf protection. the csrf value is
returned by the Login api call and stored in localstorage.
api calls without credentials return code "user:noAuth", and with bad
credentials return "user:badAuth". the api client recognizes this and triggers
a login. after a login, all auth-failed api calls are automatically retried.
only for "user:badAuth" is an error message displayed in the login form (e.g.
session expired).
in an ideal world, browsers would take care of most session management. a
server would indicate authentication is needed (like http basic auth), and the
browsers uses trusted ui to request credentials for the server & path. the
browser could use safer mechanism than sending original passwords to the
server, such as scram, along with a standard way to create sessions. for now,
web developers have to do authentication themselves: from showing the login
prompt, ensuring the right session/csrf cookies/localstorage/headers/etc are
sent with each request.
webauthn is a newer way to do authentication, perhaps we'll implement it in the
future. though hardware tokens aren't an attractive option for many users, and
it may be overkill as long as we still do old-fashioned authentication in smtp
& imap where passwords can be sent to the server.
for issue #58
