Michael Thomas wrote in <cb5c40a9-cf36-4761-a982-c4d390d5b...@mtcc.com>: ... |> I mean, it is provably more efficient to avoid doing unnecessary |> hashes, but I don't think in this context that the win is significant |> even at a large operator. My own open source implementation provides |> no provision at all for reusing a body hash across many signatures, |> and nobody ever identified it as something that was sorely needed. |> |Yeah, I think the right thing to do here is to just drop the line of |reasoning about efficiency altogether. Operators are going to implement |this or not and the potential minuscule additional overhead is not going |to be a deciding factor, imo.
Yah, my DKIM signer sorts and reuses the body hash for all compatible algorithms. (..and hoping adding another one is only a one line change.) But it is the time again to say Good night! from Germany. Greetings from the second world, --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
