In some email I received from antirez, sie wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 07:31:26AM +1100, Darren Reed wrote: > > Make sure the hash function is mentioned in the message somewhere! > > i.e. <md5:abc719d0efb184c> > > Seems a good idea, about md5: after a "light" analisys seems that md5 > possible weakness (compression function problem [see birthday attack] and > length) aren't a problem with syslog messages. What do you think? Personally, I'm not interested in choosing one or the other. It might be that when this gets spec'd up, MD-5 is in the `required' list of checksums that are implemented and `sha1' is just recommended. The type of algorithm used to calculate the message's hash is just another attribute to be passed along. Darren
