[Top] [All Lists]

Re: let's look... Re: Standardizing inline PGP for e-mail?

2003-01-24 14:35:36

Hi Michael,

--On Friday, January 24, 2003 01:53:29 PM -0500 Michael Young <mwy-opgp97(_at_)the-youngs(_dot_)org> wrote:

| The main reason we went down the subtype path was that Ned balked at
| using text/plain with extra tags.  (Thomas suggested the tags to let
| in-the-know MUAs take automatic action, and Ned balked there, too.)
| Experimenting with subtypes was a fine idea, but it hasn't been a
| complete success.  I'm happy to back off to text/plain, and I'm happy
| with the extra tags.

One alternative, that may or not be as controversial as adding parameters to Content-Type, would be to add a parameter to Content-Disposition instead, e.g.:

Content-Disposition: inline; signed=pgp

This has the benefit of leaving Content-Type as-is, and its also easily accessible to IMAP clients via the IMAP BODYSTRUCTURE response, removing the need for such clients to retrieve individual MIME part headers, which they would otherwise have to do if some X-Content header were used. The argument against this is that this change may be against the original design for Content-Disposition.

So there are five alternatives to choose from:

1) Do nothing (actually promote better support/understanding for PGP/MIME)
2) Add a parameter to Content-Type
3) Use a different text subtype for Content-Type
4) Add a parameter to Content-Disposition
5) Add a new MIME part header

Cyrus Daboo

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>