-Original Message-
From: Oxley, Bill (CCI-Atlanta)
Sent: Fri 3/17/2006 3:39 PM
To: 'Hector Santos'
Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Analyzing Failures: List of Possible Reasons
Your support idea is sound although I disagree on what DKIM is actually going
to do. However those issues
Thanks for going back on-list.
- Original Message -
From: "Hector Santos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Analyzing Failures: List of Possible
Reasons
Why go off list Bill? :-)
In my view, you are a "ne
That is a fine improvement.
Russ
At 01:49 PM 3/17/2006, Arvel Hathcock wrote:
> Proposed text:
> Since short RSA keys are susceptible off-line attacks, signers MUST
That text sounds good to me but maybe "Since short RSA keys more
easily succumb to off-line attacks, ..." is more precise?
--
At 4:20 PM -0800 3/17/06, Douglas Otis wrote:
With respect to 2048 bit keys, there is already a placeholder in the
base draft for developing a much needed binary DKIM key.
Why is a binary representation "much needed"? A 2048-bit key will
only take up 320 of the 512 bytes allowed. Or am I missi
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 09:29:58PM -0600, Paul Hoffman allegedly wrote:
> Why is a binary representation "much needed"? A 2048-bit key will
> only take up 320 of the 512 bytes allowed. Or am I missing something?
Actually, the encoding cost is only a constraint if you want to store
the key in som
