Michael Thomas wrote: > On 10/07/2010 05:01 PM, John R. Levine wrote: >> Nobody has signed a non-compliant message, so while there is nothing wrong >> with Mike's advice, it completely misses the point. > > You're right, it does miss the point. What I'm trying to get my > head around is whether this is a real problem in the real world.
Not yet, but this has a higher risk of occurrence in the future than let's say, SHA1 exploits which required us to incorporate SHA256 into the options mix. -- HLS _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
