Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/08/18/08:38:54
--------------enig81DA614A85A0DEA24C201FDC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dave Korn wrote:
> On 18 August 2006 12:42, Max Bowsher wrote:
>=20
>>
>> Let me try to force a re-wrap to occur here:
> 23456789A123456789B123456789C123456789D123456789E123456789F123456789G1234=
56789
> H
>=20
> Didn't work. Try some trailing spaces.
Yes it did.
The re-wrap which matters is the one in the quoted-printable encoded form.
The copy I sent is wrapped as follows:
>23456789A123456789B123456789C123456789D123456789E123456789F123456789G123=
=3D
456789H
However, the copy I received post list-munging was wrapped like this:
>23456789A123456789B123456789C123456789D123456789E123456789F123456789G12345=
=3D
6789H
>> The specific nature of the problem seems to be that quoted-printable
>> MIME parts seem to be getting unencoded and then re-encoded by the
>> sourceware mail system. In doing so, the wrapping policy applied by the
>> original mailer is destroyed, and sourceware's own is imposed.
>>
>> Clearly this is a bad thing, since unless the results of the policies
>> are identical, the validity of any signature is destroyed.
>=20
> Are we really sure that there isn't incorrect decoding going on at the
> receive end, and that the two forms aren't actually supposed to decode to=
the
> same result?
The RFCs indicate that it is the encoded form which is signed and verified.
The problem is that the sourceware mailer is decoding the MIME part and
re-encoding it into a subtly different form.
It's irrelevant that the two encoded forms happen to decode to the same
result, since it is the encoded form which is signed.
>> Is there a suitable sourceware administrator watching this thread, or
>> should I summarize the issue to overseers@ ?
>=20
> I think we need to understand it better. When I tried to decode your
> signature, that "looked good from here" to Al, I got an error. So I think
> there's at least some client-dependency here.
I feel I do fully understand the situation.
Are you saying that you got a verification error for my message with
Message-ID <44E46C29 DOT 3050005 AT ukf DOT net> ?
That would be bizarre, since it verifies fine for me.
Max.
--------------enig81DA614A85A0DEA24C201FDC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
iD8DBQFE5bTNfFNSmcDyxYARAoIhAJ9CbEZYqwlOOap/BnGFGaY+3xfYIgCgpcKu
/CBj7pF1dl08eyHXxG0OeZg=
=y8D7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig81DA614A85A0DEA24C201FDC--
- Raw text -