On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:59:54 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> wrote: > But: what does the "signed" tag mean? i wouldn't want to necessarily > conflate these four ideas: These are good points, Daniel. However, I had actually just been thinking of something much simpler, along the lines of just tagging "signed" any message with a "multipart/signed" part, and "encrypted" any message with a "multipart/encrypted" part. This simpler approach would certainly satisfy my needs, without having to get into sorting out all the complicated details in the points you brought up. Does that sound like it would work for folks, or would they like to see a more nuanced approach to handling tagging of signed/encrypted messages? jamie.