On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 03:22:00PM +0200, Gero Treuner wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 08:02:05AM -0400, Remco Rijnders wrote:
On the proposal to use a hashed value for the GA12345 part, I now have some
doubts as I think it would be a small effort to iterate through all
plausible values for this to regenerate the hashes and still make
observations based on those results.
good point.
You would have to salt the values in some way before the hash and
that might effect the deterministic part you'd like to keep.
salting doesn't make a hash collision more likely.
Practical downsides of a hash:
- renders openssl or gnutls to be required
- Mutt must deal with both alternatives
mutt comes with an own copy of sha1.
- wastes space in the message id (even SHA1 leads to 40 chars)
you must be kidding ...
(also, base64 would use less space.)
