Re: SFL and Balsa

["Timothy Ang" <leonhong2001 yahoo com>]

Hi guys!

I have a MIME formatted message, without the RFC822 headers and not
in a mailbox form, in a text file. Which functions I should use in libmutt
to
parse this MIME message that returns me a "MuttBody" structure which I
can append as a "part" to the existing LibBalsaMessage structure?

I have tried using mutt_parse_part function in libmutt and it didn't work
as well as I had expected.

Thanks!

Best Regards,
Timothy

----- Original Message -----
From: "wil" <wil@dready.org>
To: "Timothy Ang" <leonhong2001@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Brian Stafford" <brian@stafford.uklinux.net>; <balsa-list@gnome.org>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: SFL and Balsa


> The patch uses OpenSSL and basically duplicates the already existing PGP
> features in mutt. However, the libmutt in Balsa is terribly out-of-sync
> with mutt, and does not seem to have PGP support.
>
> http://elmy.myip.org/mutt/smime.html
>
> What you talked about is something to do with mailcap and gnome's MIME
> handling, which I am not familiar with. But I know that the content-type's
> for PGP and S/MIME are distinct so you have no problem identifying them.
> e.g. SMIME goes like application/x-pcks7-signature etc. Algorithm used is
> specified within the signature itself.
>
> I doubt this patch would be useful here. For one, it spawns the openssl's
> smime tool to do all its functions. Ideally it should be a linked in
> library.
> But I still prefer OpenSSL to SFL, haven't seen Swordfish.
>
>
> | wil                   |
> | http://www.dready.org
>
>
> On 15 Oct 22:41 Timothy Ang wrote:
> >  CDSA or Common Data Security Architecture spearheaded by Intel,
> >  attempts to set an vendor and technology independent open-source
> >  common security standards for applications.
> >  More can be found at http://developer.intel.com/ial/security/index.htm
> >   I heard that a lot of companies are using CDSA as a middleware to
> >  implement their security layers in their applications.
> >   Unfortunately, one has to implement the functions in their Messaging
> >API
> >  extensions, which makes a huge drawback in using CDSA in email clients.
> >  In actual fact, SFL, developed by RSA, is not that popular in Linux.
> >  It is mainly used in Windows. I guess RSA's reputation was tarnished by
> >  Hugh
> >  Jackman
> >  in the movie Swordfish...
> >   You mentioned there's a SMIME patch for mutt. But I have noticed that
> >  Balsa
> >  uses
> >  Gnome to recognise the attached file's mime-type. Thus unless one
> >  registers
> >  the file
> >  extensions in a system file, Gnome is going to "stereotype" the file as
> >  "application/octet-stream".
> >  Is it possible to "plug" it into Balsa, especially in labelling what
> >  protocol or encoding algorithm
> >  in encryption in the mail headers? How useful will it be to use this
> >  patch
> >  alongside with SFL?
> >   Best Regards,
> >  Tim
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >  From: "wil" <wil@dready.org>
> >  To: "Brian Stafford" <brian@stafford.uklinux.net>
> >  Cc: "Timothy Ang" <leonhong2001@yahoo.com>; <balsa-list@gnome.org>
> >  Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 7:41 PM
> >  Subject: Re: SFL and Balsa
> >    > Timothy: What's CDSA?
> >  >
> >  > >
> >  > >Anyway the point is having S/MIME does not preclude the use of
> >  PGP/MIME.
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > But they are completely different and not-interoperable. It'd be
great
> >  if
> >  > Balsa could support both, but that's not an easy job. See below.
> >  >
> >  > >>  > Another thing is, it is fairly difficult to both support S/MIME
> >  and
> >  > >>PGP at
> >  > >>  > the same time (I don't even know of any commercial mailer that
> >  can
> >  > >>do it).
> >  > >>  > GPG Made Easy is an API that is supposed to be generic but it
> >  looks
> >  > >>pretty
> >  > >>  > young a project.
> >  > >
> >  > >Wrong.  Read up on multipart/encrypted (RFC 1847).  Any number of
> >  > >mechanisms
> >  > >can coexist in this framework.
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > I'm referring to the implementation i.e. support both in a consistent
> >  > interface in Balsa. Conceptually the operations are mostly similar,
> >  sign
> >  > with private key, encrypt with public key, verify with public key,
> >  decrypt
> >  > with privkey etc. I've seen the SMIME patch for mutt, it uses lots of
> >  > #ifdef's mainly because mutt was hardwired for PGP. It would be
> >painful
> >  to
> >  > do that in Balsa. But is it worth defining an abstraction for just
two
> >  > standards?
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > | wil                   |
> >  > | http://www.dready.org
> >  >
> >    _________________________________________________________
> >  Do You Yahoo!?
> >  Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com