Grant Taylor wrote:
Don't change anything at all in any of the signed/encrypted part, just
treat it as an opaque object and encapsulate the whole thing.
It sounded like that is what Mailman already did and that by doing so
broke the signature.
I don't think it broke the signature, I think what happened is that it
hasn't been encapsulated in the correct manner.
I will have to go back and re-read if it is
possible to graft the existing MIME tree in to another larger MIME tree
with out invalidating it.
At the very least, you can do a message/rfc822 bodypart, and that should
guarantee that the signature is not broken, assuming that there's no changes
in whitespace encoding, etc....
However, I don't know how most MUAs would handle that in a signed message.
A more intelligent encapsulation format should hopefully address that issue.
--
Brad Knowles
<b...@shub-internet.org> If you like Jazz/R&B guitar, check out
LinkedIn Profile: my friend bigsbytracks on YouTube at
<http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu> http://preview.tinyurl.com/bigsbytracks
------------------------------------------------------
Mailman-Users mailing list
Mailman-Users@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
