You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to mime4j-dev@james.apache.org by Markus Wiederkehr <ma...@gmail.com> on 2009/02/03 23:44:07 UTC

Remaining open issues

Here's a list of the remaining open issues:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-34
   not sure if this one has not already been resolved; please read my
latest comment

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-58
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-68
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-69
   target for 0.7?

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-93
   in progress, handled by Oleg

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-100
   mostly done; some javadoc still missing.

Markus

Re: Remaining open issues

Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Markus Wiederkehr
<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> it's not as simple as that: SMIME (and OpenPGP/MIME) require
>> canonicalisation and normalisation
>
> I know.. we've already had this discussion to some extent.
>
> One the one hand we have RFC2633 that is a bit vague when it comes to
> the concrete canonicalization steps: "The exact details of
> canonicalization depend on the actual MIME type and subtype of an
> entity, and are not described here." But at least it describes basic
> CRLF canonicalization.
>
> On the other hand we have some real world MUAs that support S/MIME.. I
> know for sure that Outlook does not even perform basic CRLF
> canonicalization. Neither Outlook nor Thunderbird decode transfer
> encodings before verifying (nor should they if I understand
> correctly).
>
> So in order to support explicit S/MIME signatures Mime4j must not
> automatically decode transfer encodings the way it does now. This
> process is never reversible, especially for quoted-printable.
>
> CRLF canonicalization does not worry me because it can always be
> applied with a simple filter stream..

i've switch to a JIRA so we can continue the conversation after 0.6 has shipped

- robert

Re: Remaining open issues

Posted by Markus Wiederkehr <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Markus Wiederkehr
> <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
>> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Markus Wiederkehr wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Markus Wiederkehr
>>>>> <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's a list of the remaining open issues:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-34
>>>>>>  not sure if this one has not already been resolved; please read my
>>>>>> latest comment
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-58
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-68
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-69
>>>>>>  target for 0.7?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have re-targeted these for 0.7..
>>>>>
>>>>> Markus
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As soon as there is some kind of a decision about MIME4J-34 I'll start
>>>> preparing the release packages.
>>>
>>> if you're happy with my resolution, then the issue can be closed
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I think you've made a good point with #112. I also believe that
>> perfect reproduction of a message would be a necessity if a Mime4j DOM
>> should ever be used for verifying an S/MIME signature..
>
> it's not as simple as that: SMIME (and OpenPGP/MIME) require
> canonicalisation and normalisation

I know.. we've already had this discussion to some extent.

One the one hand we have RFC2633 that is a bit vague when it comes to
the concrete canonicalization steps: "The exact details of
canonicalization depend on the actual MIME type and subtype of an
entity, and are not described here." But at least it describes basic
CRLF canonicalization.

On the other hand we have some real world MUAs that support S/MIME.. I
know for sure that Outlook does not even perform basic CRLF
canonicalization. Neither Outlook nor Thunderbird decode transfer
encodings before verifying (nor should they if I understand
correctly).

So in order to support explicit S/MIME signatures Mime4j must not
automatically decode transfer encodings the way it does now. This
process is never reversible, especially for quoted-printable.

CRLF canonicalization does not worry me because it can always be
applied with a simple filter stream..

> but i agree that this would be a very useful test of the API
>
>> Regarding 0.6 I think we can build a release candidate now..
>
> once the issue has been closed, +1

Has already been closed by Oleg.

Markus

>
> - robert

Re: Remaining open issues

Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Markus Wiederkehr
<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Markus Wiederkehr wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Markus Wiederkehr
>>>> <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's a list of the remaining open issues:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-34
>>>>>  not sure if this one has not already been resolved; please read my
>>>>> latest comment
>>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-58
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-68
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-69
>>>>>  target for 0.7?
>>>>
>>>> I have re-targeted these for 0.7..
>>>>
>>>> Markus
>>>>
>>>
>>> As soon as there is some kind of a decision about MIME4J-34 I'll start
>>> preparing the release packages.
>>
>> if you're happy with my resolution, then the issue can be closed
>
> +1
>
> I think you've made a good point with #112. I also believe that
> perfect reproduction of a message would be a necessity if a Mime4j DOM
> should ever be used for verifying an S/MIME signature..

it's not as simple as that: SMIME (and OpenPGP/MIME) require
canonicalisation and normalisation

but i agree that this would be a very useful test of the API

> Regarding 0.6 I think we can build a release candidate now..

once the issue has been closed, +1

- robert

Re: Remaining open issues

Posted by Markus Wiederkehr <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Markus Wiederkehr wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Markus Wiederkehr
>>> <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Here's a list of the remaining open issues:
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-34
>>>>  not sure if this one has not already been resolved; please read my
>>>> latest comment
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-58
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-68
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-69
>>>>  target for 0.7?
>>>
>>> I have re-targeted these for 0.7..
>>>
>>> Markus
>>>
>>
>> As soon as there is some kind of a decision about MIME4J-34 I'll start
>> preparing the release packages.
>
> if you're happy with my resolution, then the issue can be closed

+1

I think you've made a good point with #112. I also believe that
perfect reproduction of a message would be a necessity if a Mime4j DOM
should ever be used for verifying an S/MIME signature..

Regarding 0.6 I think we can build a release candidate now..

Cheers
Markus

>
> - robert
>



-- 
Always remember you're unique. Just like everyone else.

Re: Remaining open issues

Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> Markus Wiederkehr wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Markus Wiederkehr
>> <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's a list of the remaining open issues:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-34
>>>  not sure if this one has not already been resolved; please read my
>>> latest comment
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-58
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-68
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-69
>>>  target for 0.7?
>>
>> I have re-targeted these for 0.7..
>>
>> Markus
>>
>
> As soon as there is some kind of a decision about MIME4J-34 I'll start
> preparing the release packages.

if you're happy with my resolution, then the issue can be closed

- robert

Re: Remaining open issues

Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
Markus Wiederkehr wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Markus Wiederkehr
> <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here's a list of the remaining open issues:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-34
>>   not sure if this one has not already been resolved; please read my
>> latest comment
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-58
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-68
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-69
>>   target for 0.7?
> 
> I have re-targeted these for 0.7..
> 
> Markus
> 

As soon as there is some kind of a decision about MIME4J-34 I'll start 
preparing the release packages.

Oleg

>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-93
>>   in progress, handled by Oleg
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-100
>>   mostly done; some javadoc still missing.
>>
>> Markus
>>
> 
> 
>

Re: Remaining open issues

Posted by Markus Wiederkehr <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Markus Wiederkehr
<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's a list of the remaining open issues:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-34
>   not sure if this one has not already been resolved; please read my
> latest comment
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-58
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-68
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-69
>   target for 0.7?

I have re-targeted these for 0.7..

Markus

> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-93
>   in progress, handled by Oleg
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-100
>   mostly done; some javadoc still missing.
>
> Markus
>



-- 
Always remember you're unique. Just like everyone else.

Re: Remaining open issues

Posted by Markus Wiederkehr <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Markus Wiederkehr wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's a list of the remaining open issues:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-34
>>>   not sure if this one has not already been resolved; please read my
>>> latest comment
>
> i think it would be best to close that particular issue and create a
> more accurate issue targetted at 0.7, and unless there are an
> objections i'll do just that

+1
Markus

>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-58
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-68
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-69
>>>   target for 0.7?
>>>
>>
>> +1 to re-targeting to 0.7
>
> +1
>
> - robert
>



-- 
Always remember you're unique. Just like everyone else.

Re: Remaining open issues

Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> Markus Wiederkehr wrote:
>>
>> Here's a list of the remaining open issues:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-34
>>   not sure if this one has not already been resolved; please read my
>> latest comment

i think it would be best to close that particular issue and create a
more accurate issue targetted at 0.7, and unless there are an
objections i'll do just that

>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-58
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-68
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-69
>>   target for 0.7?
>>
>
> +1 to re-targeting to 0.7

+1

- robert

Re: Remaining open issues

Posted by Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>.
Markus Wiederkehr wrote:
> Here's a list of the remaining open issues:
> 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-34
>    not sure if this one has not already been resolved; please read my
> latest comment
> 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-58
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-68
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-69
>    target for 0.7?
> 

+1 to re-targeting to 0.7

> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-93
>    in progress, handled by Oleg
> 

Taken care of.

Oleg

> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-100
>    mostly done; some javadoc still missing.
> 
> Markus