Jim Fenton wrote:
Just in the interest of accuracy...
Barry Leiba wrote:
Third, as was pointed out, a sender could hash a large body once and
send it multiple times, possibly saving a lot of time/effort.
This doesn't depend on the new hashing proposal. A signer could do this
under the current proposal.
Really? I thought the structure of allman-01 was to hash the
catenation of some-header-stuff, then the body then the
DKIM-signature stuff. In that case, the body hash is not useful,
at least with any standard hashing API.
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
