RE: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?

ietf-dkim

RE: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?

2006-03-16 12:30:25

Signers SHOULD NOT use keys less that 1024 bits, receivers MAY
accept keys less than 1024.

Let the receivers figure it out 

Bill Oxley 
Messaging Engineer 
Cox Communications, Inc. 
Alpharetta GA 
404-847-6397 
bill(_dot_)oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com 



_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, (continued) Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Mark Delany Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Douglas Otis Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Paul Hoffman Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Douglas Otis Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Ólafur Guðmundsson Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Douglas Otis Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Jim Fenton Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Michael Thomas Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Mark Delany Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Michael Thomas RE: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Bill.Oxley <=

Previous by Date:	Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Michael Thomas
Next by Date:	Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Paul Hoffman
Previous by Thread:	Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: 512 too short?, Michael Thomas
Next by Thread:	[ietf-dkim] New Issue: some process-problematic references in base, Stephen Farrell
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]