-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Was Tue, 17 Oct 2006, at 22:07:03 -0500,
when Ryan wrote:
> On 10/17/06, Mica Mijatovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ...
>> There is no any whimsicality in it (the previous message and wider) and
>> the answers/observations are given quite
Precisely. Once MIME enters the picture, the user agent must be
looked at as a collection of subsystems driven by the MIME structure
of the message. None of the subsystems (other than the MIME parser)
*ever* deals with a whole message; the user agent is presented with an
assembly of bodyparts and
Hi!
I have not followed the discussion, so just a short comment.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:31, Cary Wagner said:
> supporting the HTML email format. The bottom line is CAN GPG and others be
> made to play nicely with HTML.
gpg is unaware of the content. Thus you can sign or encrypt whatever
you l
ECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Ryan Malayter
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 20:07
To: Mica Mijatovic
Subject: Re: RFCs, standards, pink bunnies and flower patterns
On 10/17/06, Mica Mijatovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> There is no any whimsicality in it (the pre
On 10/17/06, Mica Mijatovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
There is no any whimsicality in it (the previous message and wider) and
the answers/observations are given quite sternly and with a quite fine
necessary precision.
...
It's like reading Ulysses, but as a day in the life of Richard
Stall
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: TIGER192
Was Tue, 17 Oct 2006, at 14:31:34 -0700,
when Cary wrote:
> Mica,
> While your comments are whimsical and, in some case very true, the point is
> HTML mail is here to stay. You or I will not stop it. I think the point of
> this thread w
Mica Mijatovic
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:21
To: Nicholas Cole
Subject: Re: RFCs, standards, pink bunnies and flower patterns
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Was Tue, 17 Oct 2006, at 15:34:39 +0100 (BST),
when Nicholas wrote:
>> Of course that it doesn&
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Was Tue, 17 Oct 2006, at 15:34:39 +0100 (BST),
when Nicholas wrote:
>> Of course that it doesn't mean that HTML should be banished
>> completely from the 'lectronic mail world, but it has its essential
>> limitations as for the cryptographic
> Nicholas Cole wrote:
> > Is there anything else about an HTML email that
> raises a red flag
> > from a security point of view?
>
> Define 'HTML email', please. If you're talking
> about simple XML, the
> security concerns are different than if you're
> talking about putting
> Javascript + Flas
On 10/17/06, Nicholas Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Ryan Malayter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again I must state that one has little to do with
> the other. MHTML's
> MIME format may not play nice with PGP/MIME's
> encapsultation format,
> but it didn't *have* to be that way. S/MIME, for
--- Ryan Malayter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again I must state that one has little to do with
> the other. MHTML's
> MIME format may not play nice with PGP/MIME's
> encapsultation format,
> but it didn't *have* to be that way. S/MIME, for
> example, seems to
> make provisions for playing nicel
> Of course that it doesn't mean that HTML should be
> banished completely
> from the 'lectronic mail world, but it has its
> essential limitations as
> for the cryptographic routines.
Mica,
Thank you for your email. It made me reflect. I had
been ignoring this discussion. HTML emails are here
On 10/16/06, Mica Mijatovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
RFCs are not any "standards" nor they are by (their own) definition
supposed to be.
They are just collection of less or more recommended routines, and often
also nothing but the lists of (most usual/mass) _habits_.
Many RFCs *are* standar
13 matches
Mail list logo
