I could live with a mandatory SHA-256, although Mike Thomas has raised a
real concern about the robustness of the available code base.
this suggests that my odd, alternate proposed language for the signer side needs
to say something not only about the "efficiency" of SHA-1, but also about its
existing installed base, ie, ready availability.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html