Ken wrote:
> I personally have no objections ... but my only caution is that sometimes
> the base64 encoded SASL tokens are actually binary, so you should make
> sure you use a pretty-printer that can handle binary.
Right, I was thinking of hexifying non-printable characters, e.g.,
displaying [0x01]. And assuming ASCII, which if I read RFC 4954
right, is valid ("non-US-ASCII is only allowed as hexchar", where
hexchar is "+" HEXDIG HEXDIG). Maybe that suggests using +01 instead
of [0x01], though I like marking the SASL bytes differently from user
data.
> Also, to me the point behind -snoop is to observer the actual SMTP/POP
> network transmission; decoding the base64 means that you won't see that.
> So I don't know if it's worth marking it somehow that it's base64, or
> maybe make it so can not decode the SASL tokens.
I'd rather not extend the length of the current indications such as
tls-decrypted and sasl-decrypted. tls-b64decryp and sasl-b64decryp ?
David
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
