On Monday, July 28, 1997 1:25 PM, Laurence Lundblade
I don't see that as a huge problem. We already deal with C-T-E: x-uue,
uuencode, x-uuencode etc... I don't expect new hash algorithms to come
along very often so the code base won't change ofen and we'll have lots of
warning. The mapping table can be stored so it's easy to update to deal
with varying implementations (e.g. in a resource or the registry).
I think that Steve and Ned turned a light on in my attic about this, and
that we're going to help out by setting an example and using "md5" and
"sha1" so that we can keep the mapping table size as small as possible.
I hope that the PGP/MIME boys take this into account also, if a revision
to RFC2015 is in the works.
Certainly, if there are arguments against moving in the "generic" micalg
direction they can be voiced, but from what Ned says, it's the way to