blob: 1ba8018331e41137faccbee92ca803e7004e61d2 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1SF8kL-0008Ip-EP
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:46:25 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1SF8kJ-00067h-Jf
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:46:25 +0000
Received: by wibhn6 with SMTP id hn6so3508130wib.10
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.100.230 with SMTP id fb6mr16425939wib.3.1333478777482;
Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.108.19 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F7A1227.7070306@gmail.com>
References: <4F7A1227.7070306@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 14:46:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T3MQzJ5gN5xTZ9y5d-og11=mB86cM3ZP4S-fhjs1U+20g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1SF8kJ-00067h-Jf
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Signature Blocks and URI Sign Requests
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:46:25 -0000
RE: signature blocks and BIP 10:
We should avoid reinventing the wheel, if we can. I think we should
extend existing standards whenever possible.
So: could we encode signature blocks or BIP-10 transactions using
S/MIME ? Or is there a more appropriate "sign a message" standard we
could/should use?
You're glossing over little details like what character encoding is
used for the message, but I'd rather leverage all the work already
done by the IETF to nail down all those little details rather then
re-discover them and come up with our own solutions.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
|
