At 3:47 PM -0700 9/17/98, Ned Freed wrote:
Its clear that this indicator has to be on the "inside", since you want the
signature to be able to cover it. This then begs the question of whether
it should be an attribute of the signature/encryption facility or of the
MIME message/rfc822 content.
Putting the indicator the header exposes information about the message --
the decrypted contents of the message is supposed to replace the headers of
the message. Keeping it inside doesn't reveal this.
I personally favor a message/rfc822 parameter, but I can also see a case for
putting it elsewhere. What do other people think? If there seems to be
consensus that this needs to be on message/rfc822, I'd be happy to write
a short draft defining such a parameter.
Maybe only the truly paranoid care about this, but it does violate a
security principle. Putting it inside the ciphertext probably complicates
the MUA's job, but I don't think it's a particularly daunting complication.
john noerenberg
jwn2(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--if we are to be saved, it will not be by Romans but by saints.
-- Thomas Cahill, "how the Irish Saved Civilization", 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------