- From: Ian Duncan <id@cc.mcgill.ca>
- Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 14:03:58 -0500 (EST)
- To: hallam@w3.org
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, hallam@w3.org
On Wed, 7 Feb 1996 hallam@w3.org wrote: > This problem is in many ways similar to the previous discussions of ways to > avoid the need for specifying a content length in the message header while not > using lossage such as the mime "ohh the probability of collision is small" > kludge. I'm getting really*really*really tired of hearing this one. And in this instance it's even more irritating since the best convention for generating a MIME boundary, MD5 or other quality hash across enough randomness to have value, is as likely to fail as any commonly available security protocol. There's nearly a one<->one mapping for the math. Probability is funny thing so long as you've the sense to see the humour. /id
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 1996 11:05:04 UTC