-----BEGIN PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE-----
Proc-Type: 4,MIC-CLEAR
Content-Domain: RFC822
Originator-ID-Asymmetric: MFMxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMQswCQYDVQQIEwJNRDE
kMCIGA1UEChMbVHJ1c3RlZCBJbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBTeXN0ZW1zMREwDwYDVQQLEwh
HbGVud29vZA==,03
MIC-Info: RSA-MD5,RSA,a+la4EglfjNcRbw/QYTnCVzarOJUeXTS3+RqNOHa2gZ
tXvoD+E+IMudJZqA/zsM6rvtFKn2NUUUGk2F/kiNmqyh8m4W94e+maNNWLw98WtB
7TLXr4oMpfo+xNUFYvAk4
I agree that PEM ought encapsulate messages, not just text bodies, and
that's one of the aspects you'll see in the maximal MIME proposal.
I'm more than a little puzzled why the headers are not included in the
current PEM specs. Some of the header information is available prior
to enhancement and is arguably important. Letting it be tampered with
seems awfully strange.
Steve
Sender: pem-dev-relay(_at_)TIS(_dot_)COM
From: p(_dot_)churchyard(_at_)ic(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk
To: pem-dev(_at_)TIS(_dot_)COM
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 17:53:58 bst
Subject: RE: PEM-MIME
I beleive that the PEM-MIME problem is not helped by the fact that PEM only
deals with message bodies and not messages..
So shouldn't the Content-Domain be rfc822-body (a la IMAP)
Pete.
-----END PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE-----