Bugtraq mailing list archives
RE: base64
From: "Rainer Gerhards" <rgerhards () hq adiscon com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:22:52 +0200
Do all this canonicalization before the message hits yourattachmenttype policy enforcement and malware scanner, so they onlyhave to dealwith the common forms that everybody handles the same.With the obvious disadvantage that we're all reduced to using the lowest-common-subset of functionality. Never mind inventing or supporting new features, or adding international file naming support, in your new email client, because the mail server will strip all of that out, anyway. I don't think that's an appropriate answer.
I think it is. Traditionally, newer RFCs *extend* existing ones - they do not break there formats. So properly engineered new functionality will either a) live within the boundary of an existing protocol or b) specifiy a new one. In the case of a) canonocalication will do no harm, in the case of b) it will not be applied as this is a separate protocol. Rainer
Current thread:
- Re: base64, (continued)
- Re: base64 MightyE (Sep 25)
- Re: base64 Earl Hood (Sep 26)
- Re: base64 Bennett Todd (Sep 26)
- Re[2]: base64 3APA3A (Sep 26)
- RE: base64 Alun Jones (Sep 26)
- Re: base64 Bennett Todd (Sep 26)
- Re: base64 Bennett Todd (Sep 26)
- Re: base64 Greg A. Woods (Sep 27)