Re: [Extra] Is this a plausible IMAP extension ?

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 28 February 2019 21:11 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A44A8126C01 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:11:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=Ezh/n9qs; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=kxBWc3Kj
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x3z1l18Y3nMC for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:11:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59A2E128D52 for <extra@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 13:11:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 19290 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2019 21:11:23 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=4b56.5c784e7b.k1902; bh=qN8u5DhRJhadpSQuJ9Wm0pybU5At4wAkE2D0KKYeWqI=; b=Ezh/n9qsYxRtQViFBA2KmwrP3OJgwGuNWN+D+sTZEfAZvaEugdCAEz4LiipBM0iS4vMJhjdhT7+Co0YB92oeNF9ks2oDQMpjvp+CS5gg/a0K5aYd3RbmGZKEC4GEenmQqiBeffqnnFQDnICML3hUwo9wBHLIYiupRPr78MpOoE+i2a3YxD8/EK1a54lHTtD7WnOSBpgD5swuKvPT0A78yD5vmA6AvOM4XZVr33tjJskT4tPD2gzSyRyECShhvWoR
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=4b56.5c784e7b.k1902; bh=qN8u5DhRJhadpSQuJ9Wm0pybU5At4wAkE2D0KKYeWqI=; b=kxBWc3Kj9c1NWj+CSuN1ezX4kw8kypm/W6fLhB3G1/neIxEP5IqJXJJN47Jj/6De+JPPlJilBR6Csqb2IXHZlzamh2rDoabszzwmAMA2z/lQCBBsHTxdAgznCjYw4EyMaXIJkm9fQV51hfd7+idK+WPKjnuyxhbiH/uSgHvK2+16ISaa/YukebC0guP/y0pgWb66WIe2RFscv9frFGR3at5jUVXKwjsknDWMIwMZWeRo9HGOhLIKaP5rWRdq2IUl
Received: from ary.local ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 28 Feb 2019 21:11:23 -0000
Received: by ary.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 08E97200F73515; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:11:22 -0500 (EST)
Date: 28 Feb 2019 16:11:22 -0500
Message-Id: <20190228211123.08E97200F73515@ary.local>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: extra@ietf.org
Cc: arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no
In-Reply-To: <01fd8d9e-fe47-453a-b4e0-f0a9d68ce43b@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/DP-OQA6rwWnJ5lfASHhZHvi20LA>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Is this a plausible IMAP extension ?
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <extra.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/extra/>
List-Post: <mailto:extra@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 21:11:28 -0000

In article <01fd8d9e-fe47-453a-b4e0-f0a9d68ce43b@gulbrandsen.priv.no> you write:
>On Thursday 28 February 2019 17:12:13 CET, John Levine wrote:
>> Urrgh.  Most of the mail that's likely to have a logo is 
>> multipart/alternative
>> and I'm not interested in wrapping contents in yet more MIME 
>> layers, which would
>> among other things break any existing DKIM signatures.
>
>You don't need that. Look at 3676. It doesn't wrap, it marks. In this case, 
>either mark the top-level multipart with the content-id of the logo
>
>  content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary=foo; logo=bar

Breaks DKIM signatures.

>  content-type: image/jpeg; content-id=bar; logo

Breaks DKIM signatures.

>or mark the logo's disposition
>
>  content-disposition: attachment; logo

Breaks DKIM signatures.

R's,
John