On Thu, May 30 2019, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> I agree that this technically isn't a "crypto function", and as such
> might not belong where i've put it. What would you think about
> util/repair.{c,h} or util/demangling.{c,h} ?
I guess "repair" is maybe clearer? No strong opinion.
jamie.
On Thu 2019-05-30 02:18:57 +, Rollins, Jameson wrote:
> I understand that this fix is for multipart/encrypted messages, but I'm
> not sure I would call the repair function itself a "crypto function".
> Given that I can imagine more repair functions in the future, would it
> make sense to break
On Tue, May 28 2019, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> This patch implements a functional identification and repair process
> for "Mixed Up" MIME messages as described in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dkg-openpgp-pgpmime-message-mangling-00#section-4.1
>
> The detection test is not entirely
This patch implements a functional identification and repair process
for "Mixed Up" MIME messages as described in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dkg-openpgp-pgpmime-message-mangling-00#section-4.1
The detection test is not entirely complete, in that it does not
verify the contents of the
