Re: Header for identifying binary messages - which one to use ?

From: Matthias Andree (ma@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de)
Date: Thu Apr 03 2003 - 16:08:30 CST


Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:

> I'm not suggesting anything at all. I'm pointing people at a much more
> comprehensive discussion of this. Curt Welch, who was the person who
> actually proposed xBin, has already reserved a domain for that purpose and
> written up most of a protocol, and has posted quite a few details on its
> purpose and use. The basic idea makes me cringe, but I have no good
> counter-arguments against it, and there are ways in which it is obviously
> useful if used and would solve real problems, so I don't really have an
> opinion on it one way or the other.

If what they're doing might still make them adopt MIME some day, then
that's fine with me -- however, there is a saying that temporary
solutions last the longest...

>> It doesn't solve Jürgen's "may be forged" issue: spammers will just omit
>> the ".binary" tag.
>
> xBin addresses the "may be forged" issue in rather impressive detail,
> using a hierarchical hashing system.

I'll then drop off this discussion for now, seems someone has thought
about that (but I wonder why Jürgen has not pointed to these efforts
along with a URL).

-- 
Matthias Andree



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7.