Return-Path: 
 <mime4j-dev-return-167-apmail-james-mime4j-dev-archive=james.apache.org@james.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-james-mime4j-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: (qmail 86658 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2009 08:03:21 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Feb 2009 08:03:21 -0000
Received: (qmail 93948 invoked by uid 500); 7 Feb 2009 08:03:21 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-james-mime4j-dev-archive@james.apache.org
Received: (qmail 93937 invoked by uid 500); 7 Feb 2009 08:03:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact mime4j-dev-help@james.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:mime4j-dev-help@james.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mime4j-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mime4j-dev@james.apache.org>
List-Id: <mime4j-dev.james.apache.org>
Reply-To: mime4j-dev@james.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list mime4j-dev@james.apache.org
Received: (qmail 93925 invoked by uid 99); 7 Feb 2009 08:03:21 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:03:21 -0800
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0
	tests=SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.13 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.220.13] (HELO mail-fx0-f13.google.com) (209.85.220.13)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 Feb 2009 08:03:13 +0000
Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so2003069fxm.4
        for <mime4j-dev@james.apache.org>;
 Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:02:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
         :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=ohZe7PxmR1mXqREzlEyw0xqJefy5ESD1xxUHiJISe44=;
        b=sg9BFTKDop1mQyomQwp/LYc+Dfw3P7yYpE36qv9zvIAQZGqoddiFtAE7Ip/dUktM2y
         FOFgan24qwdADDvhQK7NFzuC2QfmEwurKSCZ0RfggNsxpJASEydzqkK5629sF2n3TQJK
         oJhLQMrlpidGIrEI7MgxyBRk/QBrPHtlKTNrA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=D0SZPZz7xUra0AZN65kZPhQAPiaskFwONHXJbbn4SLoBin3ui71bSduEXr/T4Em37s
         aAh488j1dvSqHJ6JCOvqRf2R2IvIrpOpi3qYJ+EyaFfuuCtheesKguRHCLZ0btKdBatX
         tPXl19blpALpW95+bDmpMVyf1tzzQcPZXOiZI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.214.13 with SMTP id m13mr599479bkg.157.1233993773541;
 Sat,
	07 Feb 2009 00:02:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <a92573960902061448g647ca695s89dec26f464f0fe4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a92573960902031444s6e4d101atf6ee5ed14b50b54d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <a92573960902051342qdc0d6aarfb921a391a1ede36@mail.gmail.com>
	 <498B6CC9.7010808@apache.org>
	 <f470f68e0902061308k2e935069o410bde714c7e9e36@mail.gmail.com>
	 <a92573960902061327h61cb5c33gfd52614dd7ad898e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f470f68e0902061423ue96df32od1219f3865cc7424@mail.gmail.com>
	 <a92573960902061448g647ca695s89dec26f464f0fe4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 08:02:53 +0000
Message-ID: <f470f68e0902070002j40fbc478v36a77a0bc11a406@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Remaining open issues
From: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
To: mime4j-dev@james.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

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:

<snip>

>> 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