At 12:48 AM -0500 2/18/1997, Grant Neufeld wrote:
>> a) body parts are much more amenable to authentication and perhaps even
>> encryption (hey, why rule out the concept of a 'secure' MLM?)
>
>Hmmm, sounds good to me. But, again, we're not there yet in terms of MIME
>support.
There is a fundamental problem here -- MUAs that don't support
new MIME bodypart types are *precisely* the same ones that are least
likely to support different user-added headers. With them, you're
screwed either way.
Given that, you're better off not hobbling all MUA and MTA
implementations world-wide with a backwards-looking solution that
will be, at very best, only partially successful. Instead, you're
better off pointing to a forward-looking solution that may have some
problems in the short term, but which will give you infinitely more
flexibility in the future.
And there's nothing stopping you from implementing a new type of
message (either manual or machine-generated) using the same syntax as
is used in the new MIME bodypart type, but which is left all by
itself without MIME encapsulation/encoding.
In fact, you're better of specifying this first, and then saying
"okay, you take a message of type Slarty Bartfast and you encapsulate
it in MIME by making the Content-type "application/SMMP, etc...".
--
Brad Knowles, MIME/PGP: brad@his.com
comp.mail.sendmail FAQ Maintainer <http://www.his.com/~brad/>
finger brad@his.com for my PGP Public Keys and Geek Code
The comp.mail.sendmail FAQ is at <http://www.his.com/~brad/sendmail/>
References:
|
|
