On 3/22/17, 5:09 PM, "Albrecht Dreß" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Jeff:
Am 22.03.17 20:39 schrieb(en) Jeffrey Stedfast:
> Hah, I actually just converted it to use GChecksum internally a few days
ago…
I recall that you had your own md5 implementation in 2.6, didn't you?
Yea, for 2 reasons:
1. It was kind of a remnant from earlier versions from before GChecksum existed
2. GChecksum didn’t have g_checksum_reset() originally
Now, though, GChecksum has all the features I need (maybe it had them for 2.6
as well but it didn’t occur to me to refactor GMimeFilterMd5 at the time).
> I didn’t make it generic though, it’s still MD5-only because that was its
only use-case (for calculating/verifying the Content-Md5 header value).
>
> I could make it generic, though, if you are using it for other things?
As with some of my other ideas (like parser error tracking), this is
basically for message analysis (spam etc.), not for Balsa.
Write a message part (suspicious attachment) to a stream so it can be fed
into other tools, and during this process create a sha256 hash which can be
checked against a (spam, malware, ...) data base. Unfortunately, md5 or sha1
is not sufficient any more there days, see the stunning demonstration at
<https://alf.nu/SHA1> producing two completely different pdf's with *the same*
sha1 hash (similar tools are around for md5 since some time).
Yep, I saw that a few weeks ago when it was published. I think Content-Md5
headers are basically obsolete at this point (I never seem them in use anymore).
It’s just a feature I’ve been supporting for ages…
Anyway… I’ll look into replacing GMimeFilterMd5 with a general purpose Checksum
filter (it makes sense to do anyway).
Jeff
_______________________________________________
balsa-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/balsa-list
