Re: [Mailman-Developers] MIME footers

Murray S. Kucherawy writes: > The difference between this idea and "l=" is that there's still a > signature covering the added part, that of the MLM. No, there isn't, not when it leaves the poster's MTA. This is the same for your proposal and for "l=". People have learned to deal with top-pos

Re: [Mailman-Developers] MIME footers

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > It's certainly the case that this proposal only deals well with > > footers. The specific algorithm is to construct a MIME tree and > > sign parts of it; specifically, sign all of it, and then verify all > > of what you get firs

Re: [Mailman-Developers] MIME footers

Murray S. Kucherawy writes: > I had forgotten about message headers (i.e., prepended text). Are > those common? I had thought pretty much everyone uses footers > only. They're sometimes useful on lists that only get occasional distribution. I've used them in situations where I have an emerg

Re: [Mailman-Developers] MIME footers

OK, this time I was properly caffeinated, but that also meant I had a short attention span. :-) Sorry for the long delay replying. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > One issue this process brings up is that it's now necessary to treat > pretty much every part of the

Re: [Mailman-Developers] MIME footers

Mark Sapiro writes: > The second problem is what good is even a valid DKIM sig of only a > subset of the parts of a message? I.e., if I can take a valid DKIM > signed message and add my own MIME part(s) without any cooperation > from the original signer, what is the meaning of the sig in this

Re: [Mailman-Developers] MIME footers

Daniel Kahn Gillmor writes: > I'd bet the number of users of non-MIME-aware text-only MUAs receiving > mail from mailman that are incapable of wading through a bit of extra > MIME boundary info on otherwise text/plain messages is vanishingly > small. Not vanishing. I'll add my testimony to M

Re: [Mailman-Developers] MIME footers

On 02/27/2015 01:00 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > > Can you point us to those complaints? and the posts linked from there in the archive of the Mailman-users list and many other posts in that archive.

Re: [Mailman-Developers] MIME footers

On Fri 2015-02-27 15:07:52 -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote: > The biggest downside, and probably the main reason we append the footer text > in the text/plain-compatible-charset case is because of crappy MUAs. I think > we *still* get complaints about the MIME composition not being rendered very > well.

Re: [Mailman-Developers] MIME footers

On 02/27/2015 12:07 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> How absurd would it be to propose a flag for Mailman that would take your >> first case (non-MIME, or single-part text/plain) and convert it to a >> multipart/mixed with a child part of the

Re: [Mailman-Developers] MIME footers

Hi Murray-- On Fri 2015-02-27 14:46:40 -0500, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Sorry, by "sign" I meant "add a footer". I probably said "sign" because > this is related to some DKIM work I've been planning, and the morning's > caffeine was already wearing off. :) > Thanks for that detailed answer (

Re: [Mailman-Developers] MIME footers

On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >How absurd would it be to propose a flag for Mailman that would take your >first case (non-MIME, or single-part text/plain) and convert it to a >multipart/mixed with a child part of the original text/plain, and then >apply the algorithm you

Re: [Mailman-Developers] MIME footers

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > > Equally important: What would it do to sign a message that's not MIME > > to begin with? Could it be compelled to turn it into a MIME message, > > perhaps treating the original as a single-part text/plain message and > > doing the s