https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7596
--- Comment #10 from John Hardin <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Bill Cole from comment #9) > (In reply to John Hardin from comment #8) > > (In reply to Kevin A. McGrail from comment #7) > > > Just confirmed that code for the support to use sha256 by default for rule > > > signatures and that sha1 is used as secondary if sha256 does not exist IS > > > in > > > 3.4 and trunk. > > > > Oh, good. > > > > I'd suggest again: if both are present we should validate both. It sounds > > like that would be a minor code change. > > Not at all. It would be a non-change. It's how the code was designed from > the start. OK, good. I didn't actually look a the code, I was interpreting "if sha256 does not exist" as "fallback", not "as well". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
