Pavel Simerda wrote:
Btw, what I didn't know before... I have looked into the CID/MID rfc and there's nothing about requiring the at-sign. It's only written inthe common practice sections but there they use. And they do use local hstnames, not shared strings.But then "xmpp.sha1.da39aee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd807099" (or similar syntax) is just as conforming as any other syntax. The interesting point of the RFC is that the CIDs must be globally unique but it apparently leaves it for the implementors to be clever enough not to have the same idea. It depends if you want to break common practice.
I don't think that's right. Looking at RFC 2111 we find: content-id = url-addr-spec and url-addr-spec = addr-spec ; URL encoding of RFC 822 addr-spec Then consulting RFC 822 we find: addr-spec = local-part "@" domainHowever, I think we don't have to use a UUID for the local-part, we could use a hash.
The hostname is just useless for the XMPP purposes. But if we keep it for common practice, I'd suggest a constant one then (as it's useless anyway).
I don't see a use for it now, but that doesn't mean it's useless. However, I'm OK with hardcoding it to bob.xmpp.org or something.
If we need metadata to specify the origin, we can add an additional optional metadata element inside the <data/>.
Sure, we could do that. So something like this?
<data cid='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
origin='http://bundles.jabbim.cz/'/>
Peter
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
