[Mailman-Developers] Missing footers with latest CVS

[Mikhail Zabaluev]

Hello Barry,

Here's my RUR .02:

On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 12:38:33AM -0500, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
>
>     Ben> This would violate RFC 1522:
> 
>     SJT> That's right.  People with broken mailers have broken
>     SJT> mailers.  Make sure that things are robust for those with
>     SJT> decent software, and then do what we can for the former poor
>     SJT> souls.
> 
> Totally agreed.  I mean, look at me, a "dinosaur" who uses a
> MIME-aware MUA in a system that was never originally designed to
> support the stuff you get in email these days.  And it's mostly bug
> free <wink>.  (Aside to Stephen: do you know if Kyle still handles VM
> bug reports these days? ;).
> 
> The only hope we have of interoperating is to support the standards,
> or at least not willfully break them <Hippocratic oath wink>.  Which
> means if the charsets don't match, we can't simply tack on headers and
> footers.

This steps on my pet peeve with Mailman:
Does this matching regard Content-Transfer-Encoding as well?
Tacking on text strings to a base64 text/plain body is a recipe for
disaster, and such things happen, believe it or not.

> So we either don't add them or we add some multipart/mixed
> chrome and do it in a MIME-compliant way.

Continuing the Hippocratic theme, I'd suggest a rule: don't meddle if
it could hamper someone's reading capabilities. In this case, don't make
multipart/mixed embellishments unless it IS multipart/mixed already.
All other conversions would break some client's subtle neck or make
things look uglier. God forbid messing with multipart/alternative or
multipart/signed. It's only bulk informational add-ons, why shove it
down everyone's throat?
For the same reason, I would object things like recoding
to and fro base64 to modify content. Above all, that would put
an unnecessary load on the mail processor.

> I really don't want to think about PGP right now.  Mailcrypt w/GnuPG
> seems to only sign or encrypt the body, and in a non-MIME way, so if
> we wanted to add headers and footers it seems like we'd be safe by
> wrapping the original body in multipart/mixed chrome.  Of course you'd
> have to unpack the parts to verify (read) the signed (encrypted)
> part.  Oh well, there's not really much more you /can/ do.

I second the opinion that for the MUAs that use "magic" PGP tags in
plain/text bodies, it would be safe to add text above and below.

-- 
Stay tuned,
  MhZ                                     JID: mookid@jabber.org
___________
In the misfortune of our friends we find something that is not displeasing
to us.
		-- La Rochefoucauld, "Maxims"