Tony Hansen wrote:
> I threw almost 60 messages at your reflector. All of them verified just
> fine for both the sha256 and sha1 signatures you're producing.
>
> And for all of the test messages I threw at your reflector, your code
> verified my sha256 signatures just as well as it verifies my sha1
> signatures.
>
> So, we now have two independent implementations of sha256 support, both
> directions. Who's next?
I've checked out my code using sha256 and it worked against
Arvel's reflector, though nothing extensive. I'm not ready
to upgrade to openssl 0.98a, so this was just a test.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html