On 30/10/11 22:03, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > Assuming that standards-based arguments carry any weight at all, you'll > have a stronger argument if you *do* limit your scope to the > multipart/signed mime parts:
Would a lawyer perhaps say it as this? I would like to see no mangling at all. If there are legitimate uses for mangling, I would like to see no mangling of multipart/signed and multipart/encrypted. A lawyer would still need to define "mangling", but IANAL. But still, the part you quoted is only about /signed, and the OP reported problems with /encrypted. So it is perhaps not that strong an argument when you want to fix the OP's problem ;). And surely there must be a part of the MIME spec which says that the MTA changing inline to attachment is not a good default[1]. If it's not specified, I'd think that is because they thought it implied. Just like it is implied that it is not a good default if the MTA inserts obscenities and verbal abuse in a text/plain part. Peter. [1] At first I wrote "is not allowed". But in special circumstances, it might be okay, like when the user has explicitly configured his own MTA to do such a transformation. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at http://wwwhome.cs.utwente.nl/~lebbing/pubkey.txt _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
