From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/37484 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Simon Josefsson Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: MML multipart tag -- what does it do? Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 19:00:18 +0200 Message-ID: References: <2nr8utf2u6.fsf@piglet.jia.vnet> <874rrolurg.fsf@smarttrust.com> <87zo9fq1az.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035172891 14156 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 04:01:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:01:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org Return-Path: Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 20003 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2001 16:59:02 -0000 Original-Received: from dolk.extundo.com (195.42.214.242) by gnus.org with SMTP; 4 Aug 2001 16:59:02 -0000 Original-Received: from barbar.josefsson.org (slipsten.extundo.com [195.42.214.241]) (authenticated) by dolk.extundo.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f74Gx6w05158; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 18:59:06 +0200 Original-To: Florian Weimer In-Reply-To: <87zo9fq1az.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> (Florian Weimer's message of "Sat, 04 Aug 2001 17:42:28 +0200") Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.0.104 Original-Lines: 43 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:37484 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:37484 Florian Weimer writes: > Personally, I consider the '<#!part sign=pgpmime>' stuff a completely > broken design. IMHO, MML should as closely as possible match the MIME > structure of a message. I still don't know why the initial proposal > for something like this: > > <#multipart type=signed> > <#part> > This is a signed multipart. > > <#part type="text/plain" filename="~/file2" > disposition=attachment description="signed attachment"> > <#/part> > <#/multipart> > > was superseded by this odd construct. This requires users to know how the sign/encrypt mechanism they use are implemented in MIME. E.g., if you want to sign using PGP/MIME you must write the above, if you want to encrypt with S/MIME you need to write something completely different because S/MIME encryption doesn't use RFC 1847. Maybe users shouldn't need to know that. To me it feels more user friendly that you specify that a certain part should be signed/encrypted in the definition of that part. OTOH users probably never need this level of fine control anyway, they want the whole message signed or encrypted. OTTH I agree it's a step away from having the MML structure closely match the MIME structure, and that might be bad. But Gnus already creates MIME parts implicitely (by leaving out a top-level , or simply using two different and non-unifiable character sets in one part) so the rule is already broken, and I think it's for the better. Btw, the following works: This is a signed multipart