On 04/25/2011 01:57 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Dave further tweaks:
INFORMATIVE NOTE: Although use of rsa-sha256 is strongly encouraged,
some senders might prefer to use rsa-sha1 when balancing security
strength against performance, complexity, or other needs. However,
compliant verifiers might not implement rsa-sha1; they will treat
such messages as unsigned.
WFM.
This seems rather extreme. Last thing I've heard is that
SHA1 has been shown to have a weakness, but it hasn't
been broken. Given that we're using unsecured DNS to
deliver public keys, this seems a like a hysterical
overreaction.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html