-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of hector
Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 7:44 PM
To: John Levine
Cc: barryle...@computer.org; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Interesting Dupe Signatures
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I've had a lot of success doing this sort of common factoring work in my
implementation, though I sadly have no data about how much computation work
it really saves.
My guess is that it took you a significant bit of effort to formulate that
enhancement.
At that
-Original Message-
From: John R. Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com]
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 10:15 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Interesting Dupe Signatures
I don't see much benefit for saving the header hash, since it depends
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
DKIM-Signature: c=relaxed/relaxed; // dupe
DKIM-Signature: c=relaxed/relaxed; // dupe
DKIM-Signature: c=relaxed/relaxed; // dupe
DKIM-Signature: c=simple/relaxed;// other signer
DKIM-Signature: c=relaxed/relaxed;
Barry Leiba wrote:
But I have to consider customer sites patterns with heavy facebook
users seeing tons of fb notifications and see if a simple check can
add to the optimization.
Mike has a point, but I agree that this would be a problem for large
ISPs, where adding 10% more
Jim Fenton wrote:
Barry Leiba wrote:
But I have to consider customer sites patterns with heavy facebook
users seeing tons of fb notifications and see if a simple check can
add to the optimization.
Mike has a point, but I agree that this would be a problem for large
ISPs, where adding
On the other hand, doing both the simple and relaxed body hashes in a pass
over the body would handle about 99.999% of the signatures that anyone
cares about. ...
New improved answer: if you've taken my pipelining suggestion and
checked the DKIM signatures as soon as you see the end of the
-Original Message-
From: HLS [mailto:sant9...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of hector
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 11:00 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: barryle...@computer.org; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Interesting Dupe Signatures
Comparing public APIs, it appears
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: HLS [mailto:sant9...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of hector
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 11:00 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: barryle...@computer.org; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Interesting Dupe Signatures
Working on a DKIM stats log analyzer, I found some facebookmail.com
notification messages with two duplicate DKIM signatures.
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; d=facebookmail.com; s=q1-2009b;
c=relaxed/relaxed;
q=dns/txt; i...@facebookmail.com; t=1256981485;
On Oct 31, 2009, at 10:45 AM, hector wrote:
Working on a DKIM stats log analyzer, I found some facebookmail.com
notification messages with two duplicate DKIM signatures.
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; d=facebookmail.com; s=q1-2009b;
c=relaxed/relaxed;
q=dns/txt;
Michael Thomas wrote:
Is this really worth worrying about? I mean, the amount of
actual ham is in the vast minority so even if all of your ham
was doing tons of anti social things it probably wouldn't make
much if any difference in your average border mail gateway's job.
Possibly mike. I
12 matches
Mail list logo
