[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Standardizing inline PGP for e-mail?

2003-01-24 20:46:53

On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 07:17:09PM -0800, 
ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:

FWIW, there is a standards track precedence for Thomas' approach; the
RFC 2646 format=flowed parameter that modifies how text/plain is

I did and do have deep misgivings about format=flowed; it treads dangerously
close to the line and may indeed step a bit over it. But there's a huge
difference between something that says "it is OK to wrap these lines for
display" and something that says "Surprise! This is now structured material
containing an elaborate security object that requires extensive processing in
order to handle properly".

I don't know if I'd go that far.  Perhaps it is structured material,
but does it matter?  The client can perfectly legally just display it
to the user completely untouched with no processing at all.  The tag
seems more like a processing hint to me, which can be ignored by the


   David Shaw  |  dshaw(_at_)jabberwocky(_dot_)com  |  WWW
   "There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
      We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson