On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 mw-list-spf-discuss(_at_)csi(_dot_)hu wrote:
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.
As has been pointed out before a few times, if it becomes necessary, we
can do case insensitive matching on the hash without making it weaker than
base36. Therefore we are free to specify base64 in the encoding, and we
don't have to maintain a base36 implementation.
I am aware that this does not apply to range values like the date. I am
considering using base36 for the date for reasons of mild paranoia, since
this will not affect the #LoC in the implementation.
S.
--
Shevek http://www.anarres.org/
I am the Borg. http://www.gothnicity.org/