Re: [ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful

Just in the interest of accuracy...

Barry Leiba wrote:
> Third, as was pointed out, a sender could hash a large body once and
> send it multiple times, possibly saving a lot of time/effort.
This doesn't depend on the new hashing proposal.  A signer could do this
under the current proposal.

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