james-mime4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Remaining open issues
Date Sat, 07 Feb 2009 08:02:53 GMT
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Markus Wiederkehr
<markus.wiederkehr@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:


>> it's not as simple as that: SMIME (and OpenPGP/MIME) require
>> canonicalisation and normalisation
> I know.. we've already had this discussion to some extent.
> One the one hand we have RFC2633 that is a bit vague when it comes to
> the concrete canonicalization steps: "The exact details of
> canonicalization depend on the actual MIME type and subtype of an
> entity, and are not described here." But at least it describes basic
> CRLF canonicalization.
> On the other hand we have some real world MUAs that support S/MIME.. I
> know for sure that Outlook does not even perform basic CRLF
> canonicalization. Neither Outlook nor Thunderbird decode transfer
> encodings before verifying (nor should they if I understand
> correctly).
> So in order to support explicit S/MIME signatures Mime4j must not
> automatically decode transfer encodings the way it does now. This
> process is never reversible, especially for quoted-printable.
> CRLF canonicalization does not worry me because it can always be
> applied with a simple filter stream..

i've switch to a JIRA so we can continue the conversation after 0.6 has shipped

- robert

View raw message