On 10 Oct 2005, at 11:48 AM, Ian G wrote:
Ben Laurie wrote:
Sigh. The I-D says armour lines are at most 76 characters.
!IIRC, so replace 'standard' with fixed.
Getting back to the point of vedaal's kindly
provided suggestion, the length of the armour
lines is not fixed, and successive implementations
have wrestled with the length, gradually setting
it less as newer mailer and editor artifacts pop
out of the electronic woodwork.
My point is that the length of the Header/Tail Lines
and/or the Armor lines suggests a more effective
maximum to the length of the headers, as then the
headers themselves won't cause any problems.
If it is a big enough issue, I'd suggest adding
the following guidance:
The format of an Armor Header is that of a key-value pair. A
colon
(':' 0x38) and a single space (0x20) separate the key and value.
OpenPGP should consider improperly formatted Armor Headers to be
corruption of the ASCII Armor. Unknown keys should be reported to
the user, but OpenPGP should continue to process the message.
******
From experience, implementations may limit or warn if the length
of any Armor Header exceeds the length of other lines.
******
Or somesuch, towards end of page 49. Here's an alternate:
******
As messages may experience various transformations during
transport, resiliance may be improved if Armor Headers are
kept short, by for example being no longer than the length
of other lines (Armor Header Lines or the Armor itself).
*****
Okay, but.
OpenPGP is not an email standard. It is a data format standard.
Yes, many uses of OpenPGP are in email. But not all, and possibly
even not most. (I have heard it asserted that there are more signed
files than emails.)
I remember a past argument about the comment header, for example,
noting that an appropriately clever person could make a comment that
would do something that someone doesn't like because of high-bit
issues, character sets, etc. Our ending decision was to note that if
you hurt yourself, you hurt yourself.
The only reason I would prefer not doing anything here is that I
don't want to keep putting in hints for good interactions with
mailers in 2440bis. We are a superset of mail.
The spec as it stands is clear, and someone who puts this into mail
has to deal with long body lines in a cleartext message, anyway.
They're the mail expert, I'm not.
Jon