This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Is cygwin-ml softwere altering message content?


Dave Korn wrote:
> On 18 August 2006 12:42, Max Bowsher wrote:
> 
>>
>> Let me try to force a re-wrap to occur here:
> 23456789A123456789B123456789C123456789D123456789E123456789F123456789G123456789
> H
> 
>   Didn't work.  Try some trailing spaces.


Yes it did.

The re-wrap which matters is the one in the quoted-printable encoded form.

The copy I sent is wrapped as follows:

>23456789A123456789B123456789C123456789D123456789E123456789F123456789G123=
456789H

However, the copy I received post list-munging was wrapped like this:

>23456789A123456789B123456789C123456789D123456789E123456789F123456789G12345=
6789H


>> The specific nature of the problem seems to be that quoted-printable
>> MIME parts seem to be getting unencoded and then re-encoded by the
>> sourceware mail system. In doing so, the wrapping policy applied by the
>> original mailer is destroyed, and sourceware's own is imposed.
>>
>> Clearly this is a bad thing, since unless the results of the policies
>> are identical, the validity of any signature is destroyed.
> 
>   Are we really sure that there isn't incorrect decoding going on at the
> receive end, and that the two forms aren't actually supposed to decode to the
> same result?

The RFCs indicate that it is the encoded form which is signed and verified.

The problem is that the sourceware mailer is decoding the MIME part and
re-encoding it into a subtly different form.

It's irrelevant that the two encoded forms happen to decode to the same
result, since it is the encoded form which is signed.


>> Is there a suitable sourceware administrator watching this thread, or
>> should I summarize the issue to overseers@ ?
> 
>   I think we need to understand it better.  When I tried to decode your
> signature, that "looked good from here" to Al, I got an error.  So I think
> there's at least some client-dependency here.

I feel I do fully understand the situation.

Are you saying that you got a verification error for my message with
Message-ID <44E46C29.3050005@ukf.net> ?
That would be bizarre, since it verifies fine for me.

Max.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]