On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 10:20:21 PDT, ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx said: > On the contrary, far from being incompatible, this facility may actually > facilitate the ability to use signatures in situations where it presently isn't > possible to use them. Specifically, if a client is aware of a recipient's needs > it can tailor a message for that recipient and then sign it after the > tailoring is complete. Without this knowledge what tends to happen is that the > tailoring is done after the signature is applied, which of course renders the > signature invalid. Unfortunately, the draft as written doesn't provide a mechanism to push that information back as far as the sending MUA - you could only get this to work if the MUA included its own sender-side MTA functionality (which would be at odds with the push to use port 587 and the practice of many ISP's of blocking outbound to port 25 except from their mail servers). -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech
Attachment:
pgp00003.pgp
Description: PGP signature