[ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful

[Douglas Otis]

On Mar 21, 2006, at 2:24 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> 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.

That is correct.

base:
,----
| In all cases, the header fields of the message are presented to the
| signing algorithm first in the order indicated by the signature
| header field and canonicalized using the indicated algorithm.
'____

-Doug