Re: CAP: why do we need GENERATEUID?

[Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxx]

Doug wrote on 11/05/2001 03:49:37 PM:
> > Not true of IMAP.  The IMAP server must be able to understand the structure
> > of the entire MIME stream so that it can deal with IMAP clients that want to
> > query the messages structure, etc.  They can also care about the contents in
> > some cases such as statistics generation, attachment scanning (for virsues,
> > confidentail info, etc) and other assorted 'administrative' tasks.
> 
> Not for encrypted MIME body parts. That's the point of encrypting them.

Thats the problem w/using both signing and encryption in the same thread; its hard to always distinguish between a signed only case and an encryption only case (or the signed AND encrypted case).  

The IMAP server needs to understand the MIME hierarchy of an encrypted only msg in that it must be able to at least parse out the encrypted block(s) from the rest so that it can build the MIME hierarchy properly so that it can be properly represented to the IMAP client.  It does NOT have to parse into and grok the encrypted data (I never claimed that).  It must be able to at least grok what body parts are encrypted and 'do the best it can' w/them but deal properly w/the other non-encrypted body parts that occur before/after the encrypted stuff (in the worse case scenario of only encrypted some body parts, NOT all of them).

In any case, the citation of IMAP/POP3 has been streteched beyond the intended discussion use.  Time to get back to the original topic.  I think we are in agreement about keeping GENERATEUID so persuing this under the current title is a digression.  (We can persue it under its own heading later...)

> Yes there is such a restriction. If the CS can not parse the object,
> it is not a valid object. Look at the restriction tables. If the CS
> does not know if there is a UID, SUMMARY, DTSTART, ..., then it
> is not a valid object. 

This gets back to the unresolved issue about the requirements of CAP and not relevant to GENERATEUID.  We can take this up (again) under its own thread.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxx
Iris Associates                          Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886                    FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...