From abacha40@hotmail.com Mon May 3 09:43:07 2004 Received: from emztd670.com (80.179.100.245.forward.012.net.il [80.179.100.245]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id JAA28974 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 09:42:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405031342.JAA28974@ietf.org> From: "MRS MARIAM ABACHA" Reply-To: barrister_nick@lawyer.com To: openpgp-archive@ietf.org Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 00:33:12 +0000 Subject: assistance needed X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6900 DM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FROM=3A MRS MARIAM ABACHA C=2FO=3A SIR NICK BEN=2E DEAR FRIEND=2C I GOT TO KNOW OF YOU IN MY SEARCH FOR A REPUTABLE PERSON TO ASSIST IN AN URGENT DEAL REQUIRING UTMOST TRUST AND CONFIDENTIALITY=2E I AM SIR NICK BEN=2C AN ATTORNEY AND CLOSE CONFIDANT OF MRS=2E MARYAM ABACHA=2C THE FORMER FIRST LADY AND WIFE TO THE LATE GEN=2E SANI ABACHA=2C THE FORMER HEAD OF STATE AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA=2ESHE =28MRS=2E M=2E ABACHA=29=2C AS A RESULT OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE SHE HAS IN ME=2CMANDATED THAT I SEARCH FOR A RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY FOREIGN PARTNER=2CWHO WILL HELP RECEIVE SOME FUNDS=2C WHICH SHE HAS IN CASH TOTALING US$30M =28THIRTY MILLION UNITED STATES DOLLARS ONLY=29 INTO A PERSONAL=2C COMPANY OR ANY RELIABLE FOREIGN BANK ACCOUNT FOR SAFE KEEPING FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME=2E HER FAMILY BANK ACCOUNTS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY HAVE ALL BEEN FROZEN BY THE AUTHORITIES=2E =28I WILL REFER YOU TO THIS WEBSITE OF A LEADING NIGERIAN NEWSPAPERS=2E THE WEBSITE IS WWW=2Engrguardiannew=2Ecom PAGE 56 BACK PAGE 19=2F10=2F2001 OR WWW=2Ethisdayonline=2Ecom 4TH OCT=2E 2001 FRONT PAGE AND WWW=2Ethisdayonline=2Ecom 13th NOV=2E2003 FRONT PAGE=2C FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THESE MONIES AND THE ABACHAS=2E=29 SHE HAS DECIDED TO OFFER YOUR GOOD SELF IF YOU ARE WILLING TO RENDER THIS TREMENDOUS ASSISTANCE=2C 10% OF THE TOTAL SUM=2E NOTE THAT THIS TRANSACTION INVOLVES NO RISK WHATSOEVER=2C AS YOU WILL HAVE NO DEALING WITH MY COUNTRY=2C NIGERIA=2E RATHER=2C YOU WILL DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THE SECURITY COMPANY AND TRUST COMPANY IN EUROPE=2C OR ASIA WHICH IS WHERE THE MONEY IS RIGHT NOW=2EANY INFORMATION YOU NEED WILL BE GIVEN TO YOU AFTER YOU HAVE SHOW YOUR INTEREST=2EINCLUDE THIS LETTER IN YOUR REPLY=2E BEST REGARDS=2C SIR NICK BEN From artfloor@artfloor.net Mon May 3 14:06:01 2004 Received: from c001.snv.cp.net (h005.c001.snv.cp.net [209.228.32.119]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA17216 for ; Mon, 3 May 2004 14:06:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200405031806.OAA17216@ietf.org> Received: (cpmta 8153 invoked from network); 3 May 2004 11:05:56 -0700 Received: from 82.66.188.1 (HELO Home) by smtp.register-admin.com (209.228.32.119) with SMTP; 3 May 2004 11:05:56 -0700 X-Sent: 3 May 2004 18:05:56 GMT From: "The ArtFloor.com Gallery" Reply-To: "The ArtFloor.com Gallery" Subject: The ArtFloor Gallery | Invitation | New Exhibition Date: Mon, 3 may 2004 18:07:40 +0200 Importance: normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--=9373-svsh-1342-vhmd" ----=9373-svsh-1342-vhmd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable THE ARTFLOOR GALLERY | May 2004 www.ArtFloor.com | The best of French Contemporary Art Online at studio pric= es. The gallery is pleased to invite you to discover two artists: J. VIGILANTE a= nd M.J. JUILLARD. New French painter on ArtFloor, J. Vigilante. (http://www.artfloor.com/ebn.ebn?pid=3D245&artiste=3D85&lang=3DGB) ArtFloor invites you to discover the landscapes by our new artist J. Vigilante. He is recognized as an artist inspired of impressionism and refleting the nice colours of nature and landscapes in Provence. He has specific technics by using paint-brush and knife. His paintings are usually traditional but show his great ability to capture light and coulours and make them unique. J. Vigilante is present in many expositions in South of France like in Arles, Saint R=E9my de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, Roussillon... New works by the French painter M.J. Juillard. (http://www.artfloor.com/ebn.ebn?pid=3D245&artiste=3D15&lang=3DGB) "I dedicated my life to painting when I was 15 and recreate my own world as a perfect life : a perfect composition, the equilibrium of my dreams to reach peace". The paintings by M.J. Juillard are some poetical and abstract transpositions of the landscapes he imagines. Juillard early works were mainly inspired by Mondrian but the last paintings are a mix of this influence with the artist's talent to balance colours and a new "pop art" touch with the appearance of flowers. Juillard is a really safe value of The Artfloor Gallery and you can find his paintings today in many private collections. Kind regards, The ArtFloor.com Gallery | www . ArtFloor . com Paris-Marseille-Nice 7-days worldwide delivery Information : contact@ArtFloor.com Remove : (http://www.artfloor.com/ebn.ebn?pid=3D254&lang=3DGB) ----=9373-svsh-1342-vhmd Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable www.ArtFloor.com
THE ARTFLOOR GALLE= RY
May 2004

www. ArtFloor .com | The best of French Contemporary Art Onlin= e at studio prices.
The gallery is pleased to invite you to discover two artists := J. VIGILANTE and M.J. JUILLARD.
<= /a>


New French pain= ter on ArtFloor,
J. Vigilante.

ArtFloor invites you to discover the landscapes by our new art= ist J. Vigilante. He is recognized as an artist inspired of impres= sionism and refleting the nice colours of nature and landscapes in Pro= vence. He has specific technics by using paint-brush and knife. His p= aintings are usually traditional but show his great ability to capture = light and colours and make them unique.<= /p>

J. Vigilante is present in many expos= itions in South of France like Arles, Saint Rémy de Provence, = Aix-en-Provence, Roussillon...

 
<= /a> =




New wor= ks by the French painter M.J. Juillard.<= br>
"I dedicated my life to painting w= hen I was 15 and recreate my own world as a perfect life : a perfe= ct composition, the equilibrium of my dreams to reach peace".=

The paintings by M.J. Juillard are so= me poetical and abstract transpositions of the landscapes he imagines. Jui= llard early works were mainly inspired by Mondrian but the last pain= tings are a mix of this influence with the artist's talent to balanc= e colours and a new "pop art" touch with the appearance of flowe= rs.

Juillard is a really safe value of Th= e Artfloor Gallery and you can find his paintings today in many private c= ollections.
 


Kind regards,

The ArtFloor.com Gallery | www . ArtFloor . com
Paris-Marseille-Nice
7-days worldwide delivery

Information : contact@ArtFloor.com
Remove : click here <= /p>

 
ARTFLOOR s.a. © = 2004
----=9373-svsh-1342-vhmd-- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu May 6 15:32:10 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14457 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 15:32:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i46JAToG010389; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:10:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i46JATqI010388; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:10:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from slc-exch-1.forumsys.com (67.107.202.130.ptr.us.xo.net [67.107.202.130]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i46JASHS010369 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:10:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hmujtaba@forumsys.com) Received: from bstn-exch1.forumsys.com ([10.5.2.12]) by slc-exch-1.forumsys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 6 May 2004 13:10:19 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Literal packets and canonicalization Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 15:10:17 -0400 Message-ID: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B341@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> Thread-Topic: Literal packets and canonicalization Thread-Index: AcQznRUvBvO2anHJT+C75/y7C8eVjw== From: "Hasnain Mujtaba" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 May 2004 19:10:20.0146 (UTC) FILETIME=[C634FD20:01C4339D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i46JASHS010383 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello, I was reading section "5.9. Literal Data Packet" of RFC2440 and I had a question: What are the concequences of not canonicalizing text data before storing it in a literal packet and using the literal packet to form either an encrypted packet or signature packet? What if the sender marks all literal data as binary 'b', even if the literal data is text? Thanks Hasnain. ---- The information contained in this electronic mail and any attached document is the confidential and proprietary business information of Forum Systems, Inc. It is intended solely for the addressed recipient listed above. It may not be distributed in any manner without the express written consent of Forum Systems, Inc. From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu May 6 16:14:32 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA16956 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:14:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i46JuTVw013747; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:56:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i46JuTeo013746; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:56:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i46JuSKI013735 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:56:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i46JuOu17692 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 15:56:24 -0400 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i46JuJuG025001 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 15:56:20 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i46JuJR27412 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 15:56:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 15:56:18 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Literal packets and canonicalization Message-ID: <20040506195618.GA27216@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B341@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B341@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waning Gibbous (94% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 03:10:17PM -0400, Hasnain Mujtaba wrote: > > Hello, > > I was reading section "5.9. Literal Data Packet" of RFC2440 and I had a > question: What are the concequences of not canonicalizing text data > before storing it in a literal packet and using the literal packet to > form either an encrypted packet or signature packet? The file should decrypt properly, and (at least in PGP and GnuPG) signatures should verify properly regardless of the canonicalization. > What if the sender marks all literal data as binary 'b', even if the > literal data is text? The bad thing that will happen is that recipients on platforms that have a different text line ending convention than the sender will see somewhat mangled text in the output. For example: Macs generally end lines with CR. Unix machines generally end lines with LF. Sending data from one to the other without the benefit of canonicalization results in one very long "line" with occasional CRs or LFs in there. Some text editor/viewer programs do heuristics to detect and fix this problem, but it's generally better to canonicalize which lets the OpenPGP program handle it automatically. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu May 6 16:47:37 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA18179 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:47:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i46KRwwt015515; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:27:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i46KRwPu015514; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:27:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from slc-exch-1.forumsys.com (67.107.202.130.ptr.us.xo.net [67.107.202.130]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i46KRveh015507 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:27:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hmujtaba@forumsys.com) Received: from bstn-exch1.forumsys.com ([10.5.2.12]) by slc-exch-1.forumsys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 6 May 2004 14:27:52 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: Literal packets and canonicalization Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 16:27:49 -0400 Message-ID: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B343@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> Thread-Topic: Literal packets and canonicalization Thread-Index: AcQzpcK/QgYm3SDdTN2U/UA4Jz0pUAAARXvA From: "Hasnain Mujtaba" To: "David Shaw" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 May 2004 20:27:52.0345 (UTC) FILETIME=[9B223890:01C433A8] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i46KRweh015509 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thank you for the answer David. If, as the RFC states, we canoncialize the data before storing it in the literal packet, then the implementation is tampering with the file before performing the operation, say encryption. When I use GPG to encrypt and decrypt a text file, the checksums of the source text file and the decrypted file are the same. So, the file in not being canonicalized prior to encryption? -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of David Shaw Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 3:56 PM To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Literal packets and canonicalization On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 03:10:17PM -0400, Hasnain Mujtaba wrote: > > Hello, > > I was reading section "5.9. Literal Data Packet" of RFC2440 and I had a > question: What are the concequences of not canonicalizing text data > before storing it in a literal packet and using the literal packet to > form either an encrypted packet or signature packet? The file should decrypt properly, and (at least in PGP and GnuPG) signatures should verify properly regardless of the canonicalization. > What if the sender marks all literal data as binary 'b', even if the > literal data is text? The bad thing that will happen is that recipients on platforms that have a different text line ending convention than the sender will see somewhat mangled text in the output. For example: Macs generally end lines with CR. Unix machines generally end lines with LF. Sending data from one to the other without the benefit of canonicalization results in one very long "line" with occasional CRs or LFs in there. Some text editor/viewer programs do heuristics to detect and fix this problem, but it's generally better to canonicalize which lets the OpenPGP program handle it automatically. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu May 6 17:14:01 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA19973 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 17:14:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i46KnAL4017290; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:49:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i46KnAmp017289; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:49:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i46Kn9lJ017282 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:49:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i46Kn7u19240 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:49:07 -0400 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i46Kn2uG025862 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:49:03 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i46Kn2227822 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:49:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 16:49:02 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Literal packets and canonicalization Message-ID: <20040506204902.GC27216@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B343@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B343@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waning Gibbous (94% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 04:27:49PM -0400, Hasnain Mujtaba wrote: > > Thank you for the answer David. If, as the RFC states, we canoncialize > the data before storing it in the literal packet, then the > implementation is tampering with the file before performing the > operation, say encryption. "Tampering" is perhaps a little strong. The canonicalization is part of the standard, so while it may be tampering, it's legal tampering. ;) > When I use GPG to encrypt and decrypt a text file, the checksums of > the source text file and the decrypted file are the same. So, the > file in not being canonicalized prior to encryption? Maybe, maybe not. If you are encrypting and decrypting that text file on the same platform, then you would expect to end up with the same file since the data is canonicalized on the way in, and decanonicalized on the way out. Alternately, if you specified the text file as binary, then no canonicalization is done. GnuPG uses the "--textmode" switch to turn on canonicalization. PGP has a checkbox for it named something like "Input is text". David From ssamantra@aol.com Mon May 17 08:39:12 2004 Received: from aol.com (syr-24-58-16-123.twcny.rr.com [24.58.16.123]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA18908 for ; Mon, 17 May 2004 08:39:08 -0400 (EDT) From: ssamantra@aol.com Message-ID: Reply-To: ssamantra@aol.com To: "AOL Users" Subject: control your own future Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 18:21:22 +0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ask yourself the following questions right NOW! Are you ready to start making money? Are you ready to control your own future? Do you want to fire your boss? If you answer yes to any of the previous questions then go ahead and tell us where you are located and we will take you right to the hottest moneymakers for your area. http://www.zxcrere.com/Unifiercoils/index.htm Opt out on internetpage Or write to # 25 NanTong DaSha, FangXiang Street, ShiChuan, ChongQing 452135, China From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Fri May 21 11:51:43 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10333 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 11:51:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4LFMOjC092942; Fri, 21 May 2004 08:22:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i4LFMOLv092941; Fri, 21 May 2004 08:22:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from slc-exch-1.forumsys.com (67.107.202.130.ptr.us.xo.net [67.107.202.130]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4LFMNOM092921 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 08:22:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hmujtaba@forumsys.com) Received: from bstn-exch1.forumsys.com ([10.5.2.12]) by slc-exch-1.forumsys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 21 May 2004 09:22:20 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: Literal packets and canonicalization MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:22:17 -0400 Message-ID: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B350@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> Thread-Topic: Literal packets and canonicalization Thread-Index: AcQzrc54GNYxjluASGuwYeoPsM3OmwLmUW0z From: "Hasnain Mujtaba" To: "David Shaw" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 May 2004 15:22:20.0419 (UTC) FILETIME=[68A68D30:01C43F47] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by above.proper.com id i4LFMNOM092935 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I understand that line endings need to be converted to CRLF. But what about trailing whitespace? When canonicalizing the literal data prior to encryption, do we have to strip off trailing whitespaces? From the RFC, it seems that for signatures the canonicalization must do both, i.e convert line endings and strip off trailing whitespaces. But I am not sure if the same needs to be done for encrypting text data. Thanks -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org on behalf of David Shaw Sent: Thu 5/6/2004 4:49 PM To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Cc: Subject: Re: Literal packets and canonicalization On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 04:27:49PM -0400, Hasnain Mujtaba wrote: > > Thank you for the answer David. If, as the RFC states, we canoncialize > the data before storing it in the literal packet, then the > implementation is tampering with the file before performing the > operation, say encryption. "Tampering" is perhaps a little strong. The canonicalization is part of the standard, so while it may be tampering, it's legal tampering. ;) > When I use GPG to encrypt and decrypt a text file, the checksums of > the source text file and the decrypted file are the same. So, the > file in not being canonicalized prior to encryption? Maybe, maybe not. If you are encrypting and decrypting that text file on the same platform, then you would expect to end up with the same file since the data is canonicalized on the way in, and decanonicalized on the way out. Alternately, if you specified the text file as binary, then no canonicalization is done. GnuPG uses the "--textmode" switch to turn on canonicalization. PGP has a checkbox for it named something like "Input is text". David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Fri May 21 13:51:33 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17864 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 13:51:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4LHVgpL019637; Fri, 21 May 2004 10:31:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i4LHVgwb019636; Fri, 21 May 2004 10:31:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4LHVgQR019590 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 10:31:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i4LHVUu01242; Fri, 21 May 2004 13:31:30 -0400 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4LHVPXF001274; Fri, 21 May 2004 13:31:25 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i4LHVOc20506; Fri, 21 May 2004 13:31:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 13:31:24 -0400 From: David Shaw To: Hasnain Mujtaba Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Literal packets and canonicalization Message-ID: <20040521173124.GB18859@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: Hasnain Mujtaba , ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B350@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B350@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Crescent (5% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:22:17AM -0400, Hasnain Mujtaba wrote: > > I understand that line endings need to be converted to CRLF. But > what about trailing whitespace? When canonicalizing the literal data > prior to encryption, do we have to strip off trailing whitespaces? > From the RFC, it seems that for signatures the canonicalization must > do both, i.e convert line endings and strip off trailing > whitespaces. But I am not sure if the same needs to be done for > encrypting text data. It's a bit of a question. RFC-2440 says you must do both line ending conversion and trailing whitespace removal. In practice, GnuPG does this, and PGP does not (it only does line ending conversion). For the upcoming 2440bis, there has been some discussion here what the best thing to do is, but I don't think it is settled yet. My opinion is that we should behave as PGP currently behaves, and only do line ending conversion. Just so I'm clear, this is what I advocate: * For clearsigned text, do line ending conversion and remove trailing whitespace. * For 't' literal packets, do line ending conversion only. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon May 24 17:50:02 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA07918 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 17:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4OLNSm3068634; Mon, 24 May 2004 14:23:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i4OLNSkx068633; Mon, 24 May 2004 14:23:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4OLNQrL068615 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 14:23:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.4) for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 14:23:24 -0700 Received: from [192.168.2.235] ([63.251.255.25]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Mon, 24 May 2004 14:23:23 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B350@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> References: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B350@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <2793F825-ADC8-11D8-A373-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , "David Shaw" From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Literal packets and canonicalization Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 14:20:17 -0700 To: "Hasnain Mujtaba" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 21 May, 2004, at 8:22 AM, Hasnain Mujtaba wrote: > > I understand that line endings need to be converted to CRLF. But what > about trailing whitespace? When canonicalizing the literal data prior > to encryption, do we have to strip off trailing whitespaces? From the > RFC, it seems that for signatures the canonicalization must do both, > i.e convert line endings and strip off trailing whitespaces. But I am > not sure if the same needs to be done for encrypting text data. > What problem are you trying to solve? Are you asking in the abstract, or are you writing some program that's going to code up OpenPGP data blobs? In the abstract, it's hard to give an answer. My personal opinion is that stripping trailing whitespace in something that you know is text is rarely a bad idea. But you know, there are lots of things that I think are a good idea that I can still come up with a dozen specific examples in which you'd break that rule of thumb. Are you writing a text editor that reads and writes OpenPGP-coded files? In that case, if I were you, I'd always strip trailing whitespace. But I'd probably also stick a preference somewhere that allows the user to choose -- with the default on. Are you writing an OpenPGP toolkit? Then no, you shouldn't strip white space preemptively. But if it were me, I'd make it an option in the toolkit, but this time with the default to be not strip. (For signing, I'd probably do the toolkit with default stripping -- there's nothing that says you *can't* do it in OpenPGP -- but give an option to not do it, no matter what the standard ends up saying. I would do it because stripping will make more signatures verify correctly, and if trailing spaces are important, there's always binary mode. But I digress.) Are you writing some file copy plus crypto thing? If so, then no only should you not strip white space, but it probably shouldn't be an option, except in so much as how it is part of a format translation subsystem. People don't like file copies to modify data much at all. They're kinda used to FTP text mode (which is where OpenPGP text mode comes from, historically), but that's about it. There's no reason why you can't take a text file, and render it as a PDF in ten-point Courier and then sign that, putting both pieces into an XML wrapper. I'm sure there's a couple of people who would think it's kinda cool, even. Other people will complain, but there's no reason you can't canonicalize through PDF. As an abstract question, we can debate it forever. As a specific question, I've given two scenarios where I'd do it differently. As a developer, be bold and have some courage of your convictions. What's your opinion and why? The reason we have have MAY and SHOULD not just MUST is to allow for taste, judgement, and opinion. No matter what you want to do, there's at least one person on this list who could argue that it's right, and at least one who'd argue it's wrong. And then there's people like me, who can do both in the same message with hypotheticals. What are you really considering? Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon May 24 18:00:52 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA10031 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 18:00:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4OLfHEW073480; Mon, 24 May 2004 14:41:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i4OLfHsa073479; Mon, 24 May 2004 14:41:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from slc-exch-1.forumsys.com (67.107.202.130.ptr.us.xo.net [67.107.202.130]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4OLfGQo073452 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 14:41:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hmujtaba@forumsys.com) Received: from bstn-exch1.forumsys.com ([10.5.2.12]) by slc-exch-1.forumsys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 24 May 2004 15:41:15 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: Literal packets and canonicalization MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 17:41:11 -0400 Message-ID: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B356@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> Thread-Topic: Literal packets and canonicalization Thread-Index: AcRB1WEqkrJcwHznRwqR0xIVg/f0pgAABpbg From: "Hasnain Mujtaba" To: "Jon Callas" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 May 2004 21:41:15.0684 (UTC) FILETIME=[D729EE40:01C441D7] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i4OLfGQo073473 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jon, I'm writing an OpenPGP toolkit and my main concern is interoperability with GPG, PGP, and NAI Ebusiness Server on Windows and UNIX. By default, I am not canonicalizing text prior to encryption. In his response to my question, David clarified the down side of this approach. I will give my users the option to treat text as input, as do GPG and PGP, in which case I will canonicalize the line endings and will leave the trailing white spaces in there. Thank you for the detailed response. -----Original Message----- From: Jon Callas [mailto:jon@callas.org] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 5:20 PM To: Hasnain Mujtaba Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org; David Shaw Subject: Re: Literal packets and canonicalization On 21 May, 2004, at 8:22 AM, Hasnain Mujtaba wrote: > > I understand that line endings need to be converted to CRLF. But what > about trailing whitespace? When canonicalizing the literal data prior > to encryption, do we have to strip off trailing whitespaces? From the > RFC, it seems that for signatures the canonicalization must do both, > i.e convert line endings and strip off trailing whitespaces. But I am > not sure if the same needs to be done for encrypting text data. > What problem are you trying to solve? Are you asking in the abstract, or are you writing some program that's going to code up OpenPGP data blobs? In the abstract, it's hard to give an answer. My personal opinion is that stripping trailing whitespace in something that you know is text is rarely a bad idea. But you know, there are lots of things that I think are a good idea that I can still come up with a dozen specific examples in which you'd break that rule of thumb. Are you writing a text editor that reads and writes OpenPGP-coded files? In that case, if I were you, I'd always strip trailing whitespace. But I'd probably also stick a preference somewhere that allows the user to choose -- with the default on. Are you writing an OpenPGP toolkit? Then no, you shouldn't strip white space preemptively. But if it were me, I'd make it an option in the toolkit, but this time with the default to be not strip. (For signing, I'd probably do the toolkit with default stripping -- there's nothing that says you *can't* do it in OpenPGP -- but give an option to not do it, no matter what the standard ends up saying. I would do it because stripping will make more signatures verify correctly, and if trailing spaces are important, there's always binary mode. But I digress.) Are you writing some file copy plus crypto thing? If so, then no only should you not strip white space, but it probably shouldn't be an option, except in so much as how it is part of a format translation subsystem. People don't like file copies to modify data much at all. They're kinda used to FTP text mode (which is where OpenPGP text mode comes from, historically), but that's about it. There's no reason why you can't take a text file, and render it as a PDF in ten-point Courier and then sign that, putting both pieces into an XML wrapper. I'm sure there's a couple of people who would think it's kinda cool, even. Other people will complain, but there's no reason you can't canonicalize through PDF. As an abstract question, we can debate it forever. As a specific question, I've given two scenarios where I'd do it differently. As a developer, be bold and have some courage of your convictions. What's your opinion and why? The reason we have have MAY and SHOULD not just MUST is to allow for taste, judgement, and opinion. No matter what you want to do, there's at least one person on this list who could argue that it's right, and at least one who'd argue it's wrong. And then there's people like me, who can do both in the same message with hypotheticals. What are you really considering? Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed May 26 13:05:49 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29653 for ; Wed, 26 May 2004 13:05:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4QGVEr8068937; Wed, 26 May 2004 09:31:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i4QGVEQV068936; Wed, 26 May 2004 09:31:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from thingol.ac.utimaco.de (Thingol.aachen.utimaco.de [194.245.91.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4QGVC4u068921 for ; Wed, 26 May 2004 09:31:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Holger.Sesterhenn@smgwtest.aachen.utimaco.de) Received: (from mail@localhost) by thingol.ac.utimaco.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) id i4QGTJqI005832 for ; Wed, 26 May 2004 18:29:19 +0200 Message-ID: <40B4C633.2020403@smgwtest.aachen.utimaco.de> Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 18:30:43 +0200 From: Holger Sesterhenn Organization: Utimaco Safeware AG, NL Aachen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030821 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Converting mailbody to UTF-8 before encryption? X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.7.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, regarding to chapter 3.4 of the rfc2440bis-10 "the character set for text is the UTF-8 encoding of Unicode". Does this mean I have to convert e.g. the text body (text/plain) of a mail to UTF-8 before encryption? Until today I thought this concerns only user ids, URIs, notations etc and data to be encrypted is handled as a binary stream. This question sounds silly but I have some problems to handle the decrypted data of "OpenPGP compliant" programs sent by famous mail clients... One mail client plugin does convert every mail to UTF-8 (e.g. german "umlauts" or the euro currency symbol) before encryption. There is no special "charset" line in the ASCII armored body because UTF-8 is the default. You can configure the mail client to use "iso-8859-1", "iso-8859-15", "utf-8" or whatever. Nothing changes. The encrypted data is still UTF-8. What should another client do on decryption? Convert back from UTF-8? Handle the byte stream as is? Here some examples: CryptoEx does convert on encryption not on clear signing PGP does not convert at all GnuPG does not convert at all I am a little bit confused. -- Best Regards, Holger Sesterhenn From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu May 27 03:10:26 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04386 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 03:10:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4R6VPfV013607; Wed, 26 May 2004 23:31:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i4R6VPO1013606; Wed, 26 May 2004 23:31:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from zbasel.fortytwo.ch (zbasel.fortytwo.ch [212.254.206.135]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4R6VOdQ013527 for ; Wed, 26 May 2004 23:31:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from avbidder@fortytwo.ch) Received: from pc-4514.ethz.ch (pc-4514.ethz.ch [129.132.57.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "pc-4514.ethz.ch", Issuer "fortytwo.ch CA certificate" (verified OK)) by zbasel.fortytwo.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8132261 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 08:31:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: by pc-4514.ethz.ch (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7D69F25DA02; Thu, 27 May 2004 08:31:16 +0200 (CEST) From: "Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder" To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Converting mailbody to UTF-8 before encryption? Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 08:31:16 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <40B4C633.2020403@smgwtest.aachen.utimaco.de> In-Reply-To: <40B4C633.2020403@smgwtest.aachen.utimaco.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_0sYtAXeTXEYaYLr"; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200405270831.16373@fortytwo.ch> Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: --Boundary-02=_0sYtAXeTXEYaYLr Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wednesday 26 May 2004 18.30, Holger Sesterhenn wrote: > Hi, > > regarding to chapter 3.4 of the rfc2440bis-10 "the character set for > text is the UTF-8 encoding of Unicode". > > Does this mean I have to convert e.g. the text body (text/plain) of a > mail to UTF-8 before encryption? Hmmm. I was going to say that PGP/MIME avoids this problem entirely by=20 requiring all data to be ascii-only (using base64 or qp to achieve=20 this). But looking through 3156, I see that - 8bit data for encryption-only messages is allowed and - it seems not to specify if text or binary mode should be used in=20 encryption. (I did only quickly scroll through, so maybe I just missed=20 that bit) The kmail OpenPGP plugin seems to use binary mode (and even so, uses a=20 7bit-clean encoding inside the encryption), so this would indeed not be=20 an issue. Dunno about other implementations. greetings =2D- vbi =2D-=20 COFFEE.EXE Missing---Insert Cup and Press Any Key. --Boundary-02=_0sYtAXeTXEYaYLr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iKcEABECAGcFAkC1izRgGmh0dHA6Ly9mb3J0eXR3by5jaC9sZWdhbC9ncGcvZW1h aWwuMjAwMjA4MjI/dmVyc2lvbj0xLjUmbWQ1c3VtPTVkZmY4NjhkMTE4NDMyNzYw NzFiMjVlYjcwMDZkYTNlAAoJECqqZti935l6t+cAn04MdgtfIQJKUNFZNEllTrRG /DeYAJ9y2+ZJirfK7c1Ck7WJpxQTE8HS2A== =xDAn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_0sYtAXeTXEYaYLr-- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu May 27 17:39:39 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28022 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 17:39:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4RLBaFb035651; Thu, 27 May 2004 14:11:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i4RLBaAW035650; Thu, 27 May 2004 14:11:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4RLBZRE035637 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 14:11:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i4RLBVu20350 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 17:11:36 -0400 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4RLBQXF027689 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 17:11:26 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i4RLBQG30065 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Thu, 27 May 2004 17:11:26 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 17:11:26 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: [ISSUE] UTF8 literal packets proposal Message-ID: <20040527211125.GB29835@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (55% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Things have been quiet here recently. The UTF8 text literal packet idea (using a 'u' instead of 't') had a bit of discussion. Here's a formal proposal, with text: In section 5.9 change this: If it is a 't' (0x74), then it contains text data, and thus may need line ends converted to local form, or other text-mode changes. To this: If it is a 't' (0x74), then it contains text data, and thus may need line ends converted to local form, or other text-mode changes. The character set used is not specified. And add: If it is a 'u' (0x75), then it contains text data known to be UTF-8 encoded, and thus may need line ends converted to local form, character set conversion, or other text-mode changes. I think this best describes what was discussed here. Notably, it does not say that 't' should not be UTF-8. 't' can be whatever text people want to put in it. All 'u' means is that this text is *known* to be UTF-8. Implementations can handle this however they like (convert text in and out, always use 't', etc.) David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu May 27 18:23:06 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01242 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 18:23:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4RM0irR039234; Thu, 27 May 2004 15:00:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i4RM0i43039233; Thu, 27 May 2004 15:00:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4RM0heF039221 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 15:00:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.4) for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 15:00:44 -0700 Received: from [192.168.2.235] ([63.251.255.25]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Thu, 27 May 2004 15:00:44 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1A3A4A76-B029-11D8-8522-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed To: OpenPGP From: Jon Callas Subject: Bis11 sent out Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 14:59:18 -0700 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It includes removing Elgamal signatures, the 'u' literal flag, and lots of text regularization. Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu May 27 18:43:39 2004 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02125 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 18:43:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4RMKlV7043805; Thu, 27 May 2004 15:20:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i4RMKl73043804; Thu, 27 May 2004 15:20:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4RMKl4m043797 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 15:20:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.4) for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 15:20:49 -0700 Received: from [192.168.2.235] ([63.251.255.25]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Thu, 27 May 2004 15:20:48 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) In-Reply-To: <20040527211125.GB29835@jabberwocky.com> References: <20040527211125.GB29835@jabberwocky.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <18C6BCE3-B02C-11D8-8522-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: [ISSUE] UTF8 literal packets proposal Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 15:20:44 -0700 To: OpenPGP X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I already have it in the next release -- here's what I have: --- If it is a 'b' (0x62), then the literal packet contains binary data. If it is a 't' (0x74), then it contains text data, and thus may need line ends converted to local form, or other text-mode changes. The tag 'u' (0x75) means the same as 't', but also indicates that implementation believes that the literal data contains UTF-8 text. --- David said off-list that it was perfect (I intended to reply here, too), and did only to him. This is edited from that reply. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4RMKlV7043805; Thu, 27 May 2004 15:20:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i4RMKl73043804; Thu, 27 May 2004 15:20:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4RMKl4m043797 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 15:20:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.4) for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 15:20:49 -0700 Received: from [192.168.2.235] ([63.251.255.25]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Thu, 27 May 2004 15:20:48 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) In-Reply-To: <20040527211125.GB29835@jabberwocky.com> References: <20040527211125.GB29835@jabberwocky.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <18C6BCE3-B02C-11D8-8522-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: [ISSUE] UTF8 literal packets proposal Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 15:20:44 -0700 To: OpenPGP X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: I already have it in the next release -- here's what I have: --- If it is a 'b' (0x62), then the literal packet contains binary data. If it is a 't' (0x74), then it contains text data, and thus may need line ends converted to local form, or other text-mode changes. The tag 'u' (0x75) means the same as 't', but also indicates that implementation believes that the literal data contains UTF-8 text. --- David said off-list that it was perfect (I intended to reply here, too), and did only to him. This is edited from that reply. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4RM0irR039234; Thu, 27 May 2004 15:00:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i4RM0i43039233; Thu, 27 May 2004 15:00:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4RM0heF039221 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 15:00:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.4) for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 15:00:44 -0700 Received: from [192.168.2.235] ([63.251.255.25]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Thu, 27 May 2004 15:00:44 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1A3A4A76-B029-11D8-8522-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed To: OpenPGP From: Jon Callas Subject: Bis11 sent out Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 14:59:18 -0700 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: It includes removing Elgamal signatures, the 'u' literal flag, and lots of text regularization. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4RLBaFb035651; Thu, 27 May 2004 14:11:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i4RLBaAW035650; Thu, 27 May 2004 14:11:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4RLBZRE035637 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 14:11:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i4RLBVu20350 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 17:11:36 -0400 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4RLBQXF027689 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 17:11:26 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i4RLBQG30065 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Thu, 27 May 2004 17:11:26 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 17:11:26 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: [ISSUE] UTF8 literal packets proposal Message-ID: <20040527211125.GB29835@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (55% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Things have been quiet here recently. The UTF8 text literal packet idea (using a 'u' instead of 't') had a bit of discussion. Here's a formal proposal, with text: In section 5.9 change this: If it is a 't' (0x74), then it contains text data, and thus may need line ends converted to local form, or other text-mode changes. To this: If it is a 't' (0x74), then it contains text data, and thus may need line ends converted to local form, or other text-mode changes. The character set used is not specified. And add: If it is a 'u' (0x75), then it contains text data known to be UTF-8 encoded, and thus may need line ends converted to local form, character set conversion, or other text-mode changes. I think this best describes what was discussed here. Notably, it does not say that 't' should not be UTF-8. 't' can be whatever text people want to put in it. All 'u' means is that this text is *known* to be UTF-8. Implementations can handle this however they like (convert text in and out, always use 't', etc.) David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4R6VPfV013607; Wed, 26 May 2004 23:31:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i4R6VPO1013606; Wed, 26 May 2004 23:31:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from zbasel.fortytwo.ch (zbasel.fortytwo.ch [212.254.206.135]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4R6VOdQ013527 for ; Wed, 26 May 2004 23:31:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from avbidder@fortytwo.ch) Received: from pc-4514.ethz.ch (pc-4514.ethz.ch [129.132.57.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "pc-4514.ethz.ch", Issuer "fortytwo.ch CA certificate" (verified OK)) by zbasel.fortytwo.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8132261 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 08:31:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: by pc-4514.ethz.ch (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7D69F25DA02; Thu, 27 May 2004 08:31:16 +0200 (CEST) From: "Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder" To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Converting mailbody to UTF-8 before encryption? Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 08:31:16 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <40B4C633.2020403@smgwtest.aachen.utimaco.de> In-Reply-To: <40B4C633.2020403@smgwtest.aachen.utimaco.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_0sYtAXeTXEYaYLr"; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200405270831.16373@fortytwo.ch> Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: --Boundary-02=_0sYtAXeTXEYaYLr Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Wednesday 26 May 2004 18.30, Holger Sesterhenn wrote: > Hi, > > regarding to chapter 3.4 of the rfc2440bis-10 "the character set for > text is the UTF-8 encoding of Unicode". > > Does this mean I have to convert e.g. the text body (text/plain) of a > mail to UTF-8 before encryption? Hmmm. I was going to say that PGP/MIME avoids this problem entirely by=20 requiring all data to be ascii-only (using base64 or qp to achieve=20 this). But looking through 3156, I see that - 8bit data for encryption-only messages is allowed and - it seems not to specify if text or binary mode should be used in=20 encryption. (I did only quickly scroll through, so maybe I just missed=20 that bit) The kmail OpenPGP plugin seems to use binary mode (and even so, uses a=20 7bit-clean encoding inside the encryption), so this would indeed not be=20 an issue. Dunno about other implementations. greetings =2D- vbi =2D-=20 COFFEE.EXE Missing---Insert Cup and Press Any Key. --Boundary-02=_0sYtAXeTXEYaYLr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iKcEABECAGcFAkC1izRgGmh0dHA6Ly9mb3J0eXR3by5jaC9sZWdhbC9ncGcvZW1h aWwuMjAwMjA4MjI/dmVyc2lvbj0xLjUmbWQ1c3VtPTVkZmY4NjhkMTE4NDMyNzYw NzFiMjVlYjcwMDZkYTNlAAoJECqqZti935l6t+cAn04MdgtfIQJKUNFZNEllTrRG /DeYAJ9y2+ZJirfK7c1Ck7WJpxQTE8HS2A== =xDAn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_0sYtAXeTXEYaYLr-- Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4QGVEr8068937; Wed, 26 May 2004 09:31:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i4QGVEQV068936; Wed, 26 May 2004 09:31:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from thingol.ac.utimaco.de (Thingol.aachen.utimaco.de [194.245.91.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4QGVC4u068921 for ; Wed, 26 May 2004 09:31:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Holger.Sesterhenn@smgwtest.aachen.utimaco.de) Received: (from mail@localhost) by thingol.ac.utimaco.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) id i4QGTJqI005832 for ; Wed, 26 May 2004 18:29:19 +0200 Message-ID: <40B4C633.2020403@smgwtest.aachen.utimaco.de> Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 18:30:43 +0200 From: Holger Sesterhenn Organization: Utimaco Safeware AG, NL Aachen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030821 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Converting mailbody to UTF-8 before encryption? X-Enigmail-Version: 0.76.7.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Hi, regarding to chapter 3.4 of the rfc2440bis-10 "the character set for text is the UTF-8 encoding of Unicode". Does this mean I have to convert e.g. the text body (text/plain) of a mail to UTF-8 before encryption? Until today I thought this concerns only user ids, URIs, notations etc and data to be encrypted is handled as a binary stream. This question sounds silly but I have some problems to handle the decrypted data of "OpenPGP compliant" programs sent by famous mail clients... One mail client plugin does convert every mail to UTF-8 (e.g. german "umlauts" or the euro currency symbol) before encryption. There is no special "charset" line in the ASCII armored body because UTF-8 is the default. You can configure the mail client to use "iso-8859-1", "iso-8859-15", "utf-8" or whatever. Nothing changes. The encrypted data is still UTF-8. What should another client do on decryption? Convert back from UTF-8? Handle the byte stream as is? Here some examples: CryptoEx does convert on encryption not on clear signing PGP does not convert at all GnuPG does not convert at all I am a little bit confused. -- Best Regards, Holger Sesterhenn Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4OLfHEW073480; Mon, 24 May 2004 14:41:17 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i4OLfHsa073479; Mon, 24 May 2004 14:41:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from slc-exch-1.forumsys.com (67.107.202.130.ptr.us.xo.net [67.107.202.130]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4OLfGQo073452 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 14:41:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hmujtaba@forumsys.com) Received: from bstn-exch1.forumsys.com ([10.5.2.12]) by slc-exch-1.forumsys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 24 May 2004 15:41:15 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: Literal packets and canonicalization MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 17:41:11 -0400 Message-ID: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B356@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Literal packets and canonicalization Thread-Index: AcRB1WEqkrJcwHznRwqR0xIVg/f0pgAABpbg From: "Hasnain Mujtaba" To: "Jon Callas" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 May 2004 21:41:15.0684 (UTC) FILETIME=[D729EE40:01C441D7] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i4OLfGQo073473 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Jon, I'm writing an OpenPGP toolkit and my main concern is interoperability with GPG, PGP, and NAI Ebusiness Server on Windows and UNIX. By default, I am not canonicalizing text prior to encryption. In his response to my question, David clarified the down side of this approach. I will give my users the option to treat text as input, as do GPG and PGP, in which case I will canonicalize the line endings and will leave the trailing white spaces in there. Thank you for the detailed response. -----Original Message----- From: Jon Callas [mailto:jon@callas.org] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 5:20 PM To: Hasnain Mujtaba Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org; David Shaw Subject: Re: Literal packets and canonicalization On 21 May, 2004, at 8:22 AM, Hasnain Mujtaba wrote: > > I understand that line endings need to be converted to CRLF. But what > about trailing whitespace? When canonicalizing the literal data prior > to encryption, do we have to strip off trailing whitespaces? From the > RFC, it seems that for signatures the canonicalization must do both, > i.e convert line endings and strip off trailing whitespaces. But I am > not sure if the same needs to be done for encrypting text data. > What problem are you trying to solve? Are you asking in the abstract, or are you writing some program that's going to code up OpenPGP data blobs? In the abstract, it's hard to give an answer. My personal opinion is that stripping trailing whitespace in something that you know is text is rarely a bad idea. But you know, there are lots of things that I think are a good idea that I can still come up with a dozen specific examples in which you'd break that rule of thumb. Are you writing a text editor that reads and writes OpenPGP-coded files? In that case, if I were you, I'd always strip trailing whitespace. But I'd probably also stick a preference somewhere that allows the user to choose -- with the default on. Are you writing an OpenPGP toolkit? Then no, you shouldn't strip white space preemptively. But if it were me, I'd make it an option in the toolkit, but this time with the default to be not strip. (For signing, I'd probably do the toolkit with default stripping -- there's nothing that says you *can't* do it in OpenPGP -- but give an option to not do it, no matter what the standard ends up saying. I would do it because stripping will make more signatures verify correctly, and if trailing spaces are important, there's always binary mode. But I digress.) Are you writing some file copy plus crypto thing? If so, then no only should you not strip white space, but it probably shouldn't be an option, except in so much as how it is part of a format translation subsystem. People don't like file copies to modify data much at all. They're kinda used to FTP text mode (which is where OpenPGP text mode comes from, historically), but that's about it. There's no reason why you can't take a text file, and render it as a PDF in ten-point Courier and then sign that, putting both pieces into an XML wrapper. I'm sure there's a couple of people who would think it's kinda cool, even. Other people will complain, but there's no reason you can't canonicalize through PDF. As an abstract question, we can debate it forever. As a specific question, I've given two scenarios where I'd do it differently. As a developer, be bold and have some courage of your convictions. What's your opinion and why? The reason we have have MAY and SHOULD not just MUST is to allow for taste, judgement, and opinion. No matter what you want to do, there's at least one person on this list who could argue that it's right, and at least one who'd argue it's wrong. And then there's people like me, who can do both in the same message with hypotheticals. What are you really considering? Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4OLNSm3068634; Mon, 24 May 2004 14:23:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i4OLNSkx068633; Mon, 24 May 2004 14:23:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4OLNQrL068615 for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 14:23:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.4) for ; Mon, 24 May 2004 14:23:24 -0700 Received: from [192.168.2.235] ([63.251.255.25]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Mon, 24 May 2004 14:23:23 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B350@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> References: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B350@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <2793F825-ADC8-11D8-A373-000A9568596C@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , "David Shaw" From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Literal packets and canonicalization Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 14:20:17 -0700 To: "Hasnain Mujtaba" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On 21 May, 2004, at 8:22 AM, Hasnain Mujtaba wrote: > > I understand that line endings need to be converted to CRLF. But what > about trailing whitespace? When canonicalizing the literal data prior > to encryption, do we have to strip off trailing whitespaces? From the > RFC, it seems that for signatures the canonicalization must do both, > i.e convert line endings and strip off trailing whitespaces. But I am > not sure if the same needs to be done for encrypting text data. > What problem are you trying to solve? Are you asking in the abstract, or are you writing some program that's going to code up OpenPGP data blobs? In the abstract, it's hard to give an answer. My personal opinion is that stripping trailing whitespace in something that you know is text is rarely a bad idea. But you know, there are lots of things that I think are a good idea that I can still come up with a dozen specific examples in which you'd break that rule of thumb. Are you writing a text editor that reads and writes OpenPGP-coded files? In that case, if I were you, I'd always strip trailing whitespace. But I'd probably also stick a preference somewhere that allows the user to choose -- with the default on. Are you writing an OpenPGP toolkit? Then no, you shouldn't strip white space preemptively. But if it were me, I'd make it an option in the toolkit, but this time with the default to be not strip. (For signing, I'd probably do the toolkit with default stripping -- there's nothing that says you *can't* do it in OpenPGP -- but give an option to not do it, no matter what the standard ends up saying. I would do it because stripping will make more signatures verify correctly, and if trailing spaces are important, there's always binary mode. But I digress.) Are you writing some file copy plus crypto thing? If so, then no only should you not strip white space, but it probably shouldn't be an option, except in so much as how it is part of a format translation subsystem. People don't like file copies to modify data much at all. They're kinda used to FTP text mode (which is where OpenPGP text mode comes from, historically), but that's about it. There's no reason why you can't take a text file, and render it as a PDF in ten-point Courier and then sign that, putting both pieces into an XML wrapper. I'm sure there's a couple of people who would think it's kinda cool, even. Other people will complain, but there's no reason you can't canonicalize through PDF. As an abstract question, we can debate it forever. As a specific question, I've given two scenarios where I'd do it differently. As a developer, be bold and have some courage of your convictions. What's your opinion and why? The reason we have have MAY and SHOULD not just MUST is to allow for taste, judgement, and opinion. No matter what you want to do, there's at least one person on this list who could argue that it's right, and at least one who'd argue it's wrong. And then there's people like me, who can do both in the same message with hypotheticals. What are you really considering? Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4LHVgpL019637; Fri, 21 May 2004 10:31:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i4LHVgwb019636; Fri, 21 May 2004 10:31:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4LHVgQR019590 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 10:31:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i4LHVUu01242; Fri, 21 May 2004 13:31:30 -0400 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i4LHVPXF001274; Fri, 21 May 2004 13:31:25 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i4LHVOc20506; Fri, 21 May 2004 13:31:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 13:31:24 -0400 From: David Shaw To: Hasnain Mujtaba Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Literal packets and canonicalization Message-ID: <20040521173124.GB18859@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: Hasnain Mujtaba , ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B350@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B350@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waxing Crescent (5% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:22:17AM -0400, Hasnain Mujtaba wrote: > > I understand that line endings need to be converted to CRLF. But > what about trailing whitespace? When canonicalizing the literal data > prior to encryption, do we have to strip off trailing whitespaces? > From the RFC, it seems that for signatures the canonicalization must > do both, i.e convert line endings and strip off trailing > whitespaces. But I am not sure if the same needs to be done for > encrypting text data. It's a bit of a question. RFC-2440 says you must do both line ending conversion and trailing whitespace removal. In practice, GnuPG does this, and PGP does not (it only does line ending conversion). For the upcoming 2440bis, there has been some discussion here what the best thing to do is, but I don't think it is settled yet. My opinion is that we should behave as PGP currently behaves, and only do line ending conversion. Just so I'm clear, this is what I advocate: * For clearsigned text, do line ending conversion and remove trailing whitespace. * For 't' literal packets, do line ending conversion only. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4LFMOjC092942; Fri, 21 May 2004 08:22:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i4LFMOLv092941; Fri, 21 May 2004 08:22:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from slc-exch-1.forumsys.com (67.107.202.130.ptr.us.xo.net [67.107.202.130]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i4LFMNOM092921 for ; Fri, 21 May 2004 08:22:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hmujtaba@forumsys.com) Received: from bstn-exch1.forumsys.com ([10.5.2.12]) by slc-exch-1.forumsys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 21 May 2004 09:22:20 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: Literal packets and canonicalization MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 11:22:17 -0400 Message-ID: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B350@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Literal packets and canonicalization Thread-Index: AcQzrc54GNYxjluASGuwYeoPsM3OmwLmUW0z From: "Hasnain Mujtaba" To: "David Shaw" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 May 2004 15:22:20.0419 (UTC) FILETIME=[68A68D30:01C43F47] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by above.proper.com id i4LFMNOM092935 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: I understand that line endings need to be converted to CRLF. But what about trailing whitespace? When canonicalizing the literal data prior to encryption, do we have to strip off trailing whitespaces? From the RFC, it seems that for signatures the canonicalization must do both, i.e convert line endings and strip off trailing whitespaces. But I am not sure if the same needs to be done for encrypting text data. Thanks -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org on behalf of David Shaw Sent: Thu 5/6/2004 4:49 PM To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Cc: Subject: Re: Literal packets and canonicalization On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 04:27:49PM -0400, Hasnain Mujtaba wrote: > > Thank you for the answer David. If, as the RFC states, we canoncialize > the data before storing it in the literal packet, then the > implementation is tampering with the file before performing the > operation, say encryption. "Tampering" is perhaps a little strong. The canonicalization is part of the standard, so while it may be tampering, it's legal tampering. ;) > When I use GPG to encrypt and decrypt a text file, the checksums of > the source text file and the decrypted file are the same. So, the > file in not being canonicalized prior to encryption? Maybe, maybe not. If you are encrypting and decrypting that text file on the same platform, then you would expect to end up with the same file since the data is canonicalized on the way in, and decanonicalized on the way out. Alternately, if you specified the text file as binary, then no canonicalization is done. GnuPG uses the "--textmode" switch to turn on canonicalization. PGP has a checkbox for it named something like "Input is text". David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i46KnAL4017290; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:49:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i46KnAmp017289; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:49:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i46Kn9lJ017282 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:49:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i46Kn7u19240 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:49:07 -0400 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i46Kn2uG025862 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:49:03 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i46Kn2227822 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 16:49:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 16:49:02 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Literal packets and canonicalization Message-ID: <20040506204902.GC27216@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B343@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B343@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waning Gibbous (94% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 04:27:49PM -0400, Hasnain Mujtaba wrote: > > Thank you for the answer David. If, as the RFC states, we canoncialize > the data before storing it in the literal packet, then the > implementation is tampering with the file before performing the > operation, say encryption. "Tampering" is perhaps a little strong. The canonicalization is part of the standard, so while it may be tampering, it's legal tampering. ;) > When I use GPG to encrypt and decrypt a text file, the checksums of > the source text file and the decrypted file are the same. So, the > file in not being canonicalized prior to encryption? Maybe, maybe not. If you are encrypting and decrypting that text file on the same platform, then you would expect to end up with the same file since the data is canonicalized on the way in, and decanonicalized on the way out. Alternately, if you specified the text file as binary, then no canonicalization is done. GnuPG uses the "--textmode" switch to turn on canonicalization. PGP has a checkbox for it named something like "Input is text". David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i46KRwwt015515; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:27:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i46KRwPu015514; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:27:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from slc-exch-1.forumsys.com (67.107.202.130.ptr.us.xo.net [67.107.202.130]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i46KRveh015507 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 13:27:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hmujtaba@forumsys.com) Received: from bstn-exch1.forumsys.com ([10.5.2.12]) by slc-exch-1.forumsys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 6 May 2004 14:27:52 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: Literal packets and canonicalization Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 16:27:49 -0400 Message-ID: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B343@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Literal packets and canonicalization Thread-Index: AcQzpcK/QgYm3SDdTN2U/UA4Jz0pUAAARXvA From: "Hasnain Mujtaba" To: "David Shaw" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 May 2004 20:27:52.0345 (UTC) FILETIME=[9B223890:01C433A8] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i46KRweh015509 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Thank you for the answer David. If, as the RFC states, we canoncialize the data before storing it in the literal packet, then the implementation is tampering with the file before performing the operation, say encryption. When I use GPG to encrypt and decrypt a text file, the checksums of the source text file and the decrypted file are the same. So, the file in not being canonicalized prior to encryption? -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of David Shaw Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 3:56 PM To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Literal packets and canonicalization On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 03:10:17PM -0400, Hasnain Mujtaba wrote: > > Hello, > > I was reading section "5.9. Literal Data Packet" of RFC2440 and I had a > question: What are the concequences of not canonicalizing text data > before storing it in a literal packet and using the literal packet to > form either an encrypted packet or signature packet? The file should decrypt properly, and (at least in PGP and GnuPG) signatures should verify properly regardless of the canonicalization. > What if the sender marks all literal data as binary 'b', even if the > literal data is text? The bad thing that will happen is that recipients on platforms that have a different text line ending convention than the sender will see somewhat mangled text in the output. For example: Macs generally end lines with CR. Unix machines generally end lines with LF. Sending data from one to the other without the benefit of canonicalization results in one very long "line" with occasional CRs or LFs in there. Some text editor/viewer programs do heuristics to detect and fix this problem, but it's generally better to canonicalize which lets the OpenPGP program handle it automatically. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i46JuTVw013747; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:56:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i46JuTeo013746; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:56:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i46JuSKI013735 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:56:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i46JuOu17692 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 15:56:24 -0400 Received: from claude.jabberwocky.com ([172.24.84.27]) by walrus.ne.client2.attbi.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i46JuJuG025001 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 15:56:20 -0400 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by claude.jabberwocky.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i46JuJR27412 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Thu, 6 May 2004 15:56:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 15:56:18 -0400 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Literal packets and canonicalization Message-ID: <20040506195618.GA27216@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B341@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B341@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> X-PGP-Key: 99242560 / 7D92 FD31 3AB6 F373 4CC5 9CA1 DB69 8D71 9924 2560 X-Request-PGP: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc X-Phase-Of-Moon: The Moon is Waning Gibbous (94% of Full) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 03:10:17PM -0400, Hasnain Mujtaba wrote: > > Hello, > > I was reading section "5.9. Literal Data Packet" of RFC2440 and I had a > question: What are the concequences of not canonicalizing text data > before storing it in a literal packet and using the literal packet to > form either an encrypted packet or signature packet? The file should decrypt properly, and (at least in PGP and GnuPG) signatures should verify properly regardless of the canonicalization. > What if the sender marks all literal data as binary 'b', even if the > literal data is text? The bad thing that will happen is that recipients on platforms that have a different text line ending convention than the sender will see somewhat mangled text in the output. For example: Macs generally end lines with CR. Unix machines generally end lines with LF. Sending data from one to the other without the benefit of canonicalization results in one very long "line" with occasional CRs or LFs in there. Some text editor/viewer programs do heuristics to detect and fix this problem, but it's generally better to canonicalize which lets the OpenPGP program handle it automatically. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i46JAToG010389; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:10:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i46JATqI010388; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:10:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from slc-exch-1.forumsys.com (67.107.202.130.ptr.us.xo.net [67.107.202.130]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i46JASHS010369 for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 12:10:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from hmujtaba@forumsys.com) Received: from bstn-exch1.forumsys.com ([10.5.2.12]) by slc-exch-1.forumsys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 6 May 2004 13:10:19 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Literal packets and canonicalization Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 15:10:17 -0400 Message-ID: <4DCE15B9C4E66F4CA967EBF64C53D64D67B341@bstn-exch1.forumsys.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Literal packets and canonicalization Thread-Index: AcQznRUvBvO2anHJT+C75/y7C8eVjw== From: "Hasnain Mujtaba" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 May 2004 19:10:20.0146 (UTC) FILETIME=[C634FD20:01C4339D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id i46JASHS010383 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Hello, I was reading section "5.9. Literal Data Packet" of RFC2440 and I had a question: What are the concequences of not canonicalizing text data before storing it in a literal packet and using the literal packet to form either an encrypted packet or signature packet? What if the sender marks all literal data as binary 'b', even if the literal data is text? Thanks Hasnain. ---- The information contained in this electronic mail and any attached document is the confidential and proprietary business information of Forum Systems, Inc. It is intended solely for the addressed recipient listed above. It may not be distributed in any manner without the express written consent of Forum Systems, Inc.