So while browsing through the mutt wiki on gitlab, I come across this statement.
>you have to get your mail transferred somehow. In organizations this sometimes is provided via NFS, which means the remote mail-server filesystem appears on your local machine as if it were local, too (keyword "mount"). As end-user normally you don't notice a difference, and likewise there is no need for you to configure anything with your MUA. As regular private user (or even in organized environments) you typically have to download (and can even store back) your mail via IMAP or POP
This makes me wonder. Would it be practical or reasonable for the average email self-hosting anon to do this for his mail, bypassing IMAP or POP entirely and just mounting the mail directly? It doesn't sound completely crazy when you think about it. Looking at Debian's documentation for NFS:
>There are three different modes that nfs can operate in with Kerberos, which should be specified in the mount/export options:
>krb5 Use Kerberos for authentication only.
>krb5i Use Kerberos for authentication, and include a hash with each transaction to ensure integrity. Traffic can still be intercepted and examined, but modifications to the traffic will be apparent.
>krb5p Use Kerberos for authentication, and encrypt all traffic between the client and server. This is the most secure, but also incurs the most load.
so with krb5p, you'd be able to encrypt the transfer too!
Or hell, since setting up Kerberos for this would be a bit overkill, why not SSHFS?
You could legit mount the email over SSHFS!
Am I retarded?