-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
wayne writes:
In <20040214013111(_dot_)GA23747(_at_)csi(_dot_)hu>
mw-list-spf-discuss(_at_)csi(_dot_)hu writes:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 05:57:59PM -0800, James Couzens wrote:
SHA is bound to be larger? (6 bytes per hash?) Is there sufficient
reason to not go with base64 encoded MD5 hash?
As it has been pointed out before a few times: you cannot use base 64
in email addresses.
Well, I agree that using base64 is not a good idea, but others
disagree. In particular, Meng says:
: screw it, we're going to assume case sensitivity, and use base64. if
: it gets mangled, we drop it. if it turns out that wasn't such a good
: idea we can always put out a new version of the rfc before we get to
: draft standard status.
The only mailer that I know of that uppercased email addresses was my
ex-wifes and that was a few years ago. I no longer emailer her, so I
don't know if this is still the case.
If you actually have examples of where base64 will bit us, you might
want to give specific examples now.
Anyone tested it against Lotus Notes? I seem to recall that had
problems with case-sensitivity (as does much DOS/Windows software).
- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS
iD8DBQFALYJqQTcbUG5Y7woRAuIkAJ9Ar/PwYKEyVeXomk/TE57clmIpRACfdGAZ
PMyLtnndrj2voCZ+JbfWd8w=
=ltRq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----