W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-discuss@w3.org > November 2001

Re: canonical MIME headers

From: James M Galvin <galvin@eListX.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 10:49:14 -0500 (EST)
To: ned.freed@mrochek.com
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org
Message-id: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0111091044090.5702-100000@two.elistx.com>
I just know I'm going to feel dumb when you point out the obvious but
frankly I don't get your point at all.

I've just finished processing the "preceding" header so I've got the
boundary marker and now I'm moving through the content.  I simply
substitute some standard string for digest purposes for every boundary
marker as I come across it.

What am I missing?

Jim




On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 ned.freed@mrochek.com wrote:

    Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 19:50:15 -0800 (PST)
    From: ned.freed@mrochek.com
    To: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
    Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>,
         James M Galvin <galvin@eListX.com>, discuss@apps.ietf.org
    Subject: Re: canonical MIME headers
    
    > Seems like it would also be fairly easy to abstract out multipart
    > separators so as to be immune from them being re-written.
    
    The problem is that the separator is buried in the preceeding header.
    Handling that correctly ups the complexity considerability. IMO the
    added complexity isn't worth it.
    
    				Ned
    
Received on Friday, 9 November 2001 10:46:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 March 2006 20:11:29 GMT