[ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful

[Stephen Farrell]

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.

S.