Subject: Armour Rationale?

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:13:48 +0000

If the rationale for allowing trailing whitespace in armoured text is
that it may be added by MUAs or MTAs, then shouldn't armoured headers
and trailers also allow trailing whitespace (yes, I have seen this in
the wild!).

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

---

From: David Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 09:45:56 -0500

> and trailers also allow trailing whitespace (yes, I have seen this in

I'd say yes, this should be allowed (and ignored).  GPG actually has
special code to deal with it:

    /* Some Windows environments seem to add whitespace to the end of
       the line, so we strip it here.  This becomes strict if
       --rfc2440 is set since 2440 reads "The header lines, therefore,
       MUST start at the beginning of a line, and MUST NOT have text
       following them on the same line."  It is unclear whether "text"
       refers to all text or just non-whitespace text. */

I'd be quite happy if the draft language was something like:

     The header lines, therefore, MUST start at the beginning of a
     line, and MUST NOT have non-whitespace text following them on
     the same line.

  (that is, define the text as "non-whitespace").

David

---

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:03:27 +0000

>   (that is, define the text as "non-whitespace").

Agreed.