On Sep 17, 3:47pm, Ned Freed wrote:
Subject: Re: Encrypting RFC822 headers in S/MIME or PGP/MIME messages
I'd like to see a convention established for interpreting the
message/rfc822 type in this way, possibly when accompanied by some
other syntax.
I personally favor a message/rfc822 parameter, but I can also see a case for
putting it elsewhere. What do other people think? If there seems to be
consensus that this needs to be on message/rfc822, I'd be happy to write
a short draft defining such a parameter.
I think such a parameter would be useful in other situations besides
signed message content, so I support defining it in message/rfc822 rather
than in the signature.
If you do write a draft, please make mention of the interpretation of
this parameter when the message/rfc822 is included by reference via
message/external-body.
--
Bart Schaefer Zanshin
http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.zanshin.com