[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Information and meta-information

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 01:31:25AM +0200, Daniel A. Nagy wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 03:56:58PM -0700, Wim Lewis wrote:
> > The existing 'b', 't', etc. tags could then be defined as shorthands  
> > for particular MIME headers (content-type and charset).
> I disagree, because these tags convey a slightly different (lower-level)
> meaning than the mime headers. Also, the above suggestion would be a
> security hazard, since the literal packet's tag is not hashed and can be
> therefore altered in a signed message, without breaking the signature.
> PGP/MIME headers, on the other hand, are included in the hashed material, so
> they are part of the signed message.
> > >I would suggest the following modification of RFC2440bis-14:
> > 
> > Do you mean removing the 't' and 'u' tags? Or supplementing them with  
> > 'm'?
> Supplementing with 'm', of course. Removing 't' and 'b' tags (what's 'u'?)
> would break almost everything.

't' = unspecified charset
'u' = utf-8 charset