Re: [Extra] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: [Ietf-message-headers] Registration update: Content-MD5

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 20 October 2018 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 970B3130E0C; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 14:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Ufkm7YBjM06l; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 14:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA698130EC0; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 14:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1gDynK-000H26-CV; Sat, 20 Oct 2018 17:28:26 -0400
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 17:28:19 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
cc: extra@ietf.org, ietf-smtp <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <2D6E95CB12593FD1605A8DBE@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <01QYO1VJX96600BGSX@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <5BC59599.3000501@ninebynine.org> <f0f09879-cf78-edbf-17e7-edc79034c9e1@isode.com> <01QYO1VJX96600BGSX@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/O4iQA-NyQPLplwbCHV6j3XBr4ls>
Subject: Re: [Extra] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: [Ietf-message-headers] Registration update: Content-MD5
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: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 21:28:32 -0000

FWIW, +1

    john


--On Saturday, October 20, 2018 14:08 -0700 Ned Freed
<ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:

>> (Sorry for cross posting)
> 
>> Is there any interest in deprecating use of Content-MD5 for
>> email?
> 
> Seems like a lot of effort for no real again.
> 
> The few implementations I've seen do interoperate, so AFAIK
> that's not a reason for deprecating it.
> 
> Of course MD5 isn't cryptographically strong, but it's fine
> for a checksum, which is  what RFC 1864 says it is for. (At
> the time the RFC was written I argued for extending its use to
> crypographic applications and in the process moving the
> algorithm from the name to the value to provide for algorithm
> flexibility, but there wasn't sufficient interest.)
> 
> 				Ned
> 
> 
>> Thank you,
>> Alexey
> 
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [Ietf-message-headers] Registration update:
>> Content-MD5 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:39:05 +0100
>> From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
>> To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>et>,
>> ietf-message-headers@ietf.org
> 
>> Just to be clear, this is just use with HTTP that's being
>> obsoleted?
> 
>> It's also registered as a MIME header.  The reason for
>> obsoleting per RFC7231 appears to be inconsistent HTTP
>> implementations, so I guess that doesn't apply to MIME/email?
> 
>> # g
>> --
> 
>> On 15/10/2018 05:30, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> > As discussed on the HTTP Working Group mailing list [1],
>> > we'd like to update the registry entry for Content-MD5 in
>> > HTTP.
>> > 
>> > Proposed template:
>> > 
>> > Header name: Content-MD5
>> > Protocol: http
>> > Status: obsoleted
>> > Reference: RFC2616 (obsoleted by RFC7231, Appendix B)
>> > 
>> > Cheers,
>> > 
>> > 1.
>> > https://www.w3.org/mid/C94E5914-F5F0-46D0-BABB-D42EE45DF10D
>> > @mnot.net
>> > 
>> > 
>> > --
>> > Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>> > 
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Ietf-message-headers mailing list
>> > Ietf-message-headers@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers
>> > 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf-message-headers mailing list
>> Ietf-message-headers@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-message-headers
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Extra mailing list
>> Extra@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-smtp mailing list
> ietf-smtp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp