Re: Option for separate authorization ID

[Oswald B. <os...@us...>]

On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 07:43:35PM +0200, Jonathan Schöbel wrote:
>I filed that change against 1.3.0 since that is what I have installed 
>on Debian 11.  If it is going to be packaged it would be nice to also 
>provide another backport for this Debian version.
>
if you're building from source, you can (and should) use 1.5 (or 
master). the actual debian package won't backport feature patches 
anyway.

>I kept the behaviour, that the AUTHZID is duplicated instead of being
>omitted as se[e]ms to be the intended way (RFC4616), since a problem
>was documented.  Is that still relevant?
>
dunno. you'd have to examine the history of that plugin.

>+\fBAuthor\fR \fIauthorization id\fR
>+Specify the author name on the IMAP server.
>
that name is meaningless, especially with that description.

i always have to think hard to untangle authentication and 
authorization, so i would use more intuitive keywords.

a short (though not necessarily obvious) keyword would be "AsUser".
"ActingUser" would be a slightly more verbose variant; "LoginUser" could 
be provided as an alias for "User" for congruence.
maybe you can come up with something even better. note that in master 
you need to consider UserCmd. congruence matters.

implementation-wise, it might make sense to actually split user from 
loginUser, to make the fallback chains coherent. consider the possible 
mixing of configured, scripted, and interactive input.

thanks