On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 09:58:42PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > I think these days MIME is not so frowned upon as it once was. But you > have a point. patatt(5) actually implements an idea like yours for > signing patches including header fields, precisely for avoiding MIME.
To be clear, I love MIME. I'm not trying to avoid it, and I think Will's suggestion using MIME is absolutely fine. I'm suggesting that the existing implementation pollutes MIME, which should be avoided, as it presents an opportunity for existing MIME-compliant mail readers to be confused by RFC 822/2822/5322 headers being present in MIME header blocks, which is not something any standard even hints at. I'm not saying any such clients exist, but given the vast array of clients, it would be a challenge to prove that none do. It's just bad practice and should be avoided. [The MIME spec says non-MIME headers can be present and should be ignored, but it doesn't address handling duplicates of standard headers, and it likely wouldn't occur to past implementers of MIME that someone would want to do this... it's essentially undefined behavior. In most cases it probably should be fine, as long as implementers were careful; but it's going to depend on how message parsing / MIME header block parsing is implemented in each client.] For the record, if this is important to you, I'm also not saying you shouldn't implement it. Kevin hinted he wouldn't be too keen on working on adding this to Mutt, which is pretty consistent with Mutt's history--maintainers have always leaned pretty conservative about accepting patches, and for good reason. And especially so as Mutt is in maintenance mode. But there's no reason you can't create them and make them available to anyone who wants this. That's something that's also been a part of Mutt development for decades--I and many others have maintained patches for Mutt for extended periods, some of which eventually made it in, many of which did not. I'd just note that, as it would be a subset of people who use Mutt and use Mutt's encryption features--already a fairly rarified group--I suspect the audience for such patches will be quite small indeed... -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
