[ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful

[Jim Fenton]

I stand corrected; hadn't considered the order things are being
presented to the hash algorithm.  Thanks for keeping me honest.

-Jim

Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according
> tohttp://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>