> -----Original Message----- > From: John R. Levine [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 10:15 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Interesting Dupe Signatures > > I don't see much benefit for saving the header hash, since it depends > on > the order that the headers are listed in the h= header.
Right, but if the "h=" and the "c=" for the header are the same, you can reuse them. > On the other hand, doing both the simple and relaxed body hashes in a > pass > over the body would handle about 99.999% of the signatures that anyone > cares about. I haven't seen many l= signatures, other than from Cisco, > and I don't think I've seen any where the l= didn't cover the whole > message. That might also be a good optimization, especially if we can assume that SHA is cheap. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
