RE: base64

From: Rainer Gerhards (rgerhards_at_hq.adiscon.com)
Date: 09/26/03

  • Next message: Bennett Todd: "Re: base64" 
    Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:22:52 +0200
To: "Alun Jones" <alun@texis.com>, <bugtraq@securityfocus.com>

    > > Do all this canonicalization before the message hits your
    > attachment
    > > type policy enforcement and malware scanner, so they only
    > have to deal
    > > with the common forms that everybody handles the same.
    >
    > With the obvious disadvantage that we're all reduced to using
    > the lowest-common-subset of functionality. Never mind
    > inventing or supporting new features, or adding international
    > file naming support, in your new email client, because the
    > mail server will strip all of that out, anyway. I don't
    > think that's an appropriate answer.

    I think it is. Traditionally, newer RFCs *extend* existing ones - they
    do not break there formats. So properly engineered new functionality
    will either a) live within the boundary of an existing protocol or b)
    specifiy a new one. In the case of a) canonocalication will do no harm,
    in the case of b) it will not be applied as this is a separate protocol.

    Rainer

  • Next message: Bennett Todd: "Re: base64"
    • Quantcast