On 2020-04-22 21:00:44 -0400, re...@webconquest.com wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 09:54:17AM +0200, Gero wrote in > <20200421075417.gv11...@innocircle.com>: > > > One thing, though: use base36, not base64 - as recommended in [0]. > > > Base64 only saves 4 characters and you don't necessarily need to put all > > > 160 bits of the sha1 into the Message-ID. > > > > Also agreed. > > > > As the standard says, if there is software treating MessageId as > > case-insensitive, this shouldn't be exploitet. > > I used Base64 in one of my proposed patches as there we can easily re-use > the functions already part of Mutt to do this. I note that RFC822 says that > the case in the Message-ID should be preserved. Even if there are some non > standards conforming software implementations out there, I still think that > potential issue would be so small that it can be ignored completely. It > becomes a trade off between ease of implementation and saving a few bytes > which I don't feel too strong about either way.
For the domain part (after the "@"), Mutt should not try to mix cases. But for the local part, I don't see any reason not to do so. There is already mail software that generates Message-IDs with mixed cases before the "@". -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
