I agree if it's already covered then we ought to leave MSG alone.
spt
Tony Capel wrote:
I agree with Blake, section 3.1 already notes this problem,
and (as noted by Peter originally) the example in section
3.1.4 already explicitly notes the "From" problem
(and others) as well.
There are two problems with inserting a general recommendation
to solve this problem by making transfer encoding a "should":
1) This is only a problem with clear-signed text (not for opaque or any
encrypted); so if this were a general "should" we may be unnecessarily forcing
transfer encoding (and message expanding) ALL messages.
2) I have found that clear-signing often fails with messages going from one
organization to another and it has not always been clear why. A better solution
in MHO is to use opaque signing. Trying to make a list of all the potential
corruption cases and specifying transfer encoding for each case may be a
formative task - and I am not sure we would get every case - that is, I don't
think MSG is the place to be definitive about this (leaving it as an example as
per 3.1.4 is fine).
So I would suggest leaving MSG as is.
tony
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
| [mailto:owner-ietf-smime(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Blake Ramsdell
| Sent: April 22, 2004 11:34 PM
| To: 'Peter Hesse'; 'Russ Housley'; ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
| Subject: RE: RE: Last Call: 'S/MIME Version 3.1 Message
| Specification' to Proposed Standard
|
|
|
| > -----Original Message-----
| > From: Blake Ramsdell [mailto:blake(_at_)brutesquadlabs(_dot_)com]
| > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 8:21 PM
| > To: 'Peter Hesse'; 'Russ Housley'; 'ietf-smime(_at_)imc(_dot_)org'
| > Subject: RE: RE: Last Call: 'S/MIME Version 3.1 Message
| > Specification' to Proposed Standard
| >
| > In any case, the current path is a non-normative paragraph as
| > Paul suggested, which covers MTA munging in general.
|
| You know what? From section 3.1:
|
| <verbatim>
| A single procedure is used for creating MIME entities that
| are to have any combination of signing, enveloping and
| compressing applied. Some additional steps are recommended to
| defend against known corruptions that can occur during mail
| transport that are of particular importance for clear-
| signing using the multipart/signed format. It is recommended
| that these additional steps be performed on enveloped
| messages, or signed and enveloped messages in order that the
| message can be forwarded to any environment without
| modification. </verbatim>
|
| I think this is completely adequate and exactly covers the
| case we're discussing here.
|
| Blake
|