I stand corrected; hadn't considered the order things are being presented to the hash algorithm. Thanks for keeping me honest.
-Jim Douglas Otis wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2006, at 2:24 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> >> 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. > > That is correct. > > base: > ,---- > | In all cases, the header fields of the message are presented to the > | signing algorithm first in the order indicated by the signature > | header field and canonicalized using the indicated algorithm. > '____ > > -Doug > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according > tohttp://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
