> It looks to me like another incentive to use multipart messages (as if > the parallelism and the mixmasterliness of it weren't enough). > > Has there actually been a concrete proposal on how to do multipart? I'd > be tempted to work on the code, if I knew what the data was supposed to > look like.
I would put the part information in the metadata and other than that have them look like normal files. So what we really need to implement next is the metadata, for which we have a concrete proposal. Here is my version of the proposal, mixing the truly agreed upon things with my ideas on the subject. There is a field containing public, plaintext metadata, in the dotted field format. PublicMetadata.Expires=10/26/2002 PublicMetadata.HeaderLength=1002 PublicMetadata.Encryption=RC4 The HeaderLength field refers to the length of the header in the trailing field. The trailing field is formatted just like a message, with fields and a trailing field. It is encrypted with the Encryption method. The first HeaderLength bytes are the fields and the part after that is the trailing field. Inside the trailing field, we currently (but not necessarily permanently) allow only PrivateMetadata dotted fields. PrivateMetadata.PartNumber=1 PrivateMetadata.NumberOfParts=10 PrivateMetadata.Author=Brandon PrivateMetadata.MIMEType=text/plain Data blahblahblah Each multipart item should probably contain a list of keys for other parts. _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
