Ken wrote:
I personally have no objections ... but my only caution is that sometimes
the base64 encoded SASL tokens are actually binary, so you should make
sure you use a pretty-printer that can handle binary.
Right, I was thinking of hexifying non-printable characters, e.g.,
displaying [0x01]. And assuming ASCII, which if I read RFC 4954
right, is valid ("non-US-ASCII is only allowed as hexchar", where
hexchar is "+" HEXDIG HEXDIG). Maybe that suggests using +01 instead
of [0x01], though I like marking the SASL bytes differently from user
data.
Also, to me the point behind -snoop is to observer the actual SMTP/POP
network transmission; decoding the base64 means that you won't see that.
So I don't know if it's worth marking it somehow that it's base64, or
maybe make it so can not decode the SASL tokens.
I'd rather not extend the length of the current indications such as
tls-decrypted and sasl-decrypted. tls-b64decryp and sasl-b64decryp ?
David
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers