On Aug 14, 2009, at 8:39 PM, WJCarpenter wrote:
These days, standardized digitial signature schemes take into
account legal transformations that can happen during message
transmission. Most of them have a canonicalization formula so that
things still work. However, in early days, various
I was thinking things like: upper vs. lowercase characters, different
line wrapping lengths, possibly some other weird stuff.. I'd think
that all digital signatures break if any of those change? Or do they
really parse the headers and do calculate the signatures using the
decoded base64?
Ye
On Aug 14, 2009, at 7:15 PM, WJCarpenter wrote:
Step 4) Figure out if base64-encoded attachments can be decoded in
a way
that allows re-encoding them back to the exact original encoding.
If so,
save the attachment decoded and add the necessary encoding info the
dbox
metadata.
Although
Step 4) Figure out if base64-encoded attachments can be decoded in a way
that allows re-encoding them back to the exact original encoding. If so,
save the attachment decoded and add the necessary encoding info the dbox
metadata.
Although you might like to do that for some sort of tidiness o
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 17:06 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 8/14/2009, Timo Sirainen (t...@iki.fi) wrote:
> > Hard links would be the simplest implementation without needing a
> > separate database. Sure you could implement that too if you wanted to.
>
> So... support hard links natively (on FS
On 8/14/2009, Timo Sirainen (t...@iki.fi) wrote:
> Hard links would be the simplest implementation without needing a
> separate database. Sure you could implement that too if you wanted to.
So... support hard links natively (on FS that support them), then allow
for supporting other backend storage
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 13:54 -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > Step 4) Figure out if base64-encoded attachments can be decoded in a way
> > that allows re-encoding them back to the exact original encoding. If so,
> > save the attachment decoded and add the necessary encoding
Timo Sirainen wrote:
Step 4) Figure out if base64-encoded attachments can be decoded in a way
that allows re-encoding them back to the exact original encoding. If so,
save the attachment decoded and add the necessary encoding info the dbox
metadata.
Or perhaps just store them compressed. How muc
Step 4) Figure out if base64-encoded attachments can be decoded in a way
that allows re-encoding them back to the exact original encoding. If so,
save the attachment decoded and add the necessary encoding info the dbox
metadata.
Or perhaps just store them compressed. How much of a difference is th
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 12:40 -0700, Jason Fesler wrote:
> > Hard links would be the simplest implementation without needing a
> > separate database. Sure you could implement that too if you wanted to.
>
> It would be worth checking the limits for hard links, and making sure they
> are suitable for
Hard links would be the simplest implementation without needing a
separate database. Sure you could implement that too if you wanted to.
It would be worth checking the limits for hard links, and making sure they
are suitable for a large mail system using this scheme, without having a
fallback
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 14:18 -0500, Eric Jon Rostetter wrote:
> Quoting Timo Sirainen :
>
> > 1) When writing the data, extract the attachments and write them to
> > different files. Add pointers to those files to the EXT_REF metadata.
> > Dovecot's message parsers should make this not-too-difficul
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 12:06 -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> Now do we need to implement some kind of external database for tracking
> the attachments between mailboxes? Any thoughts on what that should
> look like?
I think:
Step 1) Calculate SHA256 of the attachment and get base64 sum of it.
Quoting Timo Sirainen :
1) When writing the data, extract the attachments and write them to
different files. Add pointers to those files to the EXT_REF metadata.
Dovecot's message parsers should make this not-too-difficult to
implement.
I'd rather it did mime parts, rather than attachments. I
Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 11:28 -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
What would be involved in implementing SIS within Dovecot? A new or
modified mailbox format?
It could be added to dbox without too much trouble. I already kind of
planned for it:
/* Pointer to ext
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 11:28 -0700, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
> What would be involved in implementing SIS within Dovecot? A new or
> modified mailbox format?
It could be added to dbox without too much trouble. I already kind of
planned for it:
/* Pointer to external message data. Format i
What would be involved in implementing SIS within Dovecot? A new or
modified mailbox format?
--
Daniel
17 matches
Mail list logo
