I stand corrected; hadn't considered the order things are being
presented to the hash algorithm. Thanks for keeping me honest.
-Jim
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Mar 21, 2006, at 2:24 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Jim Fenton wrote:
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.
Really? I thought the structure of allman-01 was to hash the
catenation of some-header-stuff, then the body then the
DKIM-signature stuff. In that case, the body hash is not useful,
at least with any standard hashing API.
That is correct.
base:
,----
| In all cases, the header fields of the message are presented to the
| signing algorithm first in the order indicated by the signature
| header field and canonicalized using the indicated algorithm.
'____
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according
tohttp://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html