Hi David,

> RFC 2045 states (section 6.8):
> data, characters other than those in Table 1, line breaks, and other
> white space probably indicate a transmission error, about which a
> warning message or even a message rejection might be appropriate
> under some circumstances."

A user-agent has to assume that it's message might be dropped if it
creates base64 with junk in it. So it should not create these things
and it's perfectly resaonable for a MTA/virus-scanner to drop those
messages.

> "Because it is used only for padding at the end of the data, the
> occurrence of any "=" characters may be taken as evidence that the
> end of the data has been reached (without truncation in transit). No
> such assurance is possible, however, when the number of octets
> transmitted was a multiple of three and no "=" characters are
> present."

Again, as the mail-client does not have a way to know how the generated
data is interpreted in those ambigous cases its reasonable to just
drop those messages.

> But there are too many common email user
> agents which generate non-conforming messages.

Is there already a list of broken MUAs? Do the vendors even know
(yes, they should have cought that during testing... ;-) )

> Or should we reject all these broken messages? ;-)

Either reject them or convert them to a canonical form. But that will
generate further problems, e.g. if you modify signed payload that way.

Chris

--
Message passing as the fundamental operation of the OS is just an
excercise in computer science masturbation. It may feel good, but you
don't actually get anything DONE. -- Linus Torvalds

[ reply ]