Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/07/2010 05:01 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Nobody has signed a non-compliant message, so while there is nothing wrong
with Mike's advice, it completely misses the point.
You're right, it does miss the point. What I'm trying to get my
head around is whether this is a real problem in the real world.
Not yet, but this has a higher risk of occurrence in the future than
let's say, SHA1 exploits which required us to incorporate SHA256 into
the options mix.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html