On 31.10.2011 21:27, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> From: ietf.org On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
>>
>> IIRC, I was trying to make sense of
>>
>> 2. Identify string(s) (such as local-parts of email addresses) in a
>> message that need to be redacted. Call this the "private data".
>>
>> It is the most difficult part of the task. Doing it too liberally may make
>> the whole header unusable, and redacting each atom individually is an easy
>> criterion to avoid that. (Well, it looks easy to specify, at least.)
>
> Possibly, but since "[email protected]" consists of four atoms, you end up with
> something like this if you want to encode an email address:
>
> [redacted-encoding1][redacted-encoding2][redacted-encoding3][redacted-encoding4]
Actually, I meant
"redacted-encoding1" "@" "redacted-encoding2" "." "redacted-encoding3"
> That seems excessive.
Yes, definitely. Perhaps, step 6 could be changed so as to read
6. Replace each atom of the private data string with the characters at
the corresponding positions in the encoded hash string, when
generating the report.
Thus "<[email protected]>" becomes "<[email protected]>" if the encoded hash is ABCD...,
but easiness is lost.
_______________________________________________
marf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
