Re: [dmarc-ietf] Apropos of the de-munging draft

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Sun, 02 August 2020 21:20 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <d4147037-701f-520b-4355-9a07fd708467@tana.it> <20200802175142.9576E1DC8B47@ary.qy>
In-Reply-To: <20200802175142.9576E1DC8B47@ary.qy>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2020 14:20:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwY9a9JVWYc2tbFCTCUhetDprexz8gTsSr98RbCQmG0ZCg@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008396af05abeb9683"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ZWLynscryQizdEq2aJxrld8JRak>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Apropos of the de-munging draft
Precedence: list

On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 10:51 AM John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> >Looking at the steps required to carry out the proposed unmunging, "a lot
> easier" doesn't seem to be an accurate measurement.
>
> In python it's about two lines since there are well debugged libraries
> to handle MIME.  Same in most other languages.
>

I agree, the code to do this is easy and well tested, and it works so long
as the MLM is doing the mutation in exactly the same way the verifier will
undo it.  The concern comes down to two different MIME library implementers
disagreeing on their choices for where an extra newline might be helpful,
for example.

-MSK

[dmarc-ietf] Apropos of the de-munging draft John R Levine
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Apropos of the de-munging draft Alessandro Vesely
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Apropos of the de-munging draft John Levine
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Apropos of the de-munging draft Murray S. Kucherawy
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Apropos of the de-munging draft John R Levine
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Apropos of the de-munging draft Alessandro Vesely