Ian G wrote:
Ben Laurie wrote:
I think this entirely misses the point - the question is not how
messages are stored/transmitted, but what an implementation should do
when some unit of storage/transmission contains more than one message.
It seems entirely reasonable to me that it should be expected to keep
eating messages until there are no messages left to eat, however the
spec does not state that. It seems to me that it could, quite easily.
Nope.
The decision you are asking for is a semantic one. I.e., what does it
mean to have two messages? In a transactional environment, it would be
the height of protocol rudeness for OpenPGP to impose a meaning on the
messages. That decision lives firmly at the app level.
I am not arguing with that. However, I am not asking for any semantic
interpretation from, say, GPG, which does not really do semantics.
See also that other example in rejoinder to Rachel.
In which I agree that it is up to the application to interpret the
meaning of having two signed messages in one file. Or, indeed, in having
two signed messages in two files.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.links.org/
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff