MIME or inline signature ?

Hugo Osvaldo Barrera hugo at barrera.io
Sat Feb 14 21:37:30 CET 2015

On 2015-02-14 14:33, MFPA wrote:
> Hi
> On Friday 13 February 2015 at 7:41:14 PM, in
> <mid:54DE535A.2060205 at sixdemonbag.org>, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > Postel's sentiments were more, "Reject traffic that
> > does not conform to the spec, even if it's in common
> > use; accept traffic that conforms to the protocol spec,
> > even if it's exotic; and only generate traffic that
> > conforms to both spec and common use."  Unfortunately,
> > that loses much of the poetry of the original phrasing.
> Rejecting traffic that does not conform to the spec, even if it's in
> common use is counter-intuitive. It seems to be denying yourself
> access to some of the incoming traffic for the sake of pedantry, which
> sounds like it would harm interoperability. But, of course, the point
> of having a spec is interoperability.

Not necesarily. Writing and testing the code to support non-standard traffic
takes time and effort, and may increase the likelyhood of introducing some bug.
In proyects that don't have a lot of manpower, implementing such compatibility
may be a dealbreaker.

Hugo Osvaldo Barrera
A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted text?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20150214/e9463697/attachment.sig>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list