Re: Section_4.02.01 Basic Format

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 07 1999 - 05:37:44 CDT


In <v0420510eb37dbac11694@[195.238.1.121]> Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be> writes:

>At 1:16 PM +0000 6/4/99, Charles Lindsey wrote:

>> Apart from being a horrid kludge, this
>> still does not work if the 'real' headers at the top have been munged
>> (refolded/whatever). Then the comparison fails unless you make it as
>> complex as the canonicalization would have been in the other scheme. So
>> you still have the worst of both worlds.

> I disagree. If they don't match exactly, you could just replace
>the "external" headers with the contents of the internal ones
>(assuming the signature checks out).

I still think it would be useful to distinguish between the case where the
two versions differred because of some folding munge, and where they
differred because some bad guy had changed them (for example, you posted
your article to newsgroups A and B, but deliberately not to C (where it
would have been considered off -topic and flamebait). The Bad guy
reinjects it with Newsgroup C added in the top headers.

Now the deliberately changed version would be a legitimate case for a 3rd
party cancel, but not so for the munged one.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email:     chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk  Web:   http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9     Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7  65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29.