[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: One space proposal

To: "IETF MASS WG" <ietf-mailsig@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: One space proposal
From: wayne <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:12:00 -0500
In-reply-to: <> (Bryan Costales's message of "Thu, 04 Aug 2005 13:30:53 -0700")
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-mailsig.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mailsig-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Mail-copies-to: nobody
References: <>
Reply-to: "IETF MASS WG" <ietf-mailsig@xxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-ietf-mailsig@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4 (Jumbo Shrimp, linux)

In <42F27AFD.6040503@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Bryan Costales <bcx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Others have pointed out the weakness of the "nowsp"

I too have wondered why the canonicalization algorigthm proposed in DK
(and now DKIM) eleminates all white space instead of collasping white
space.

Pardon my ignorance, but can someone tell me why?


I'm not sure the "one space" proposal solves all problems, but, unless
I'm missing something, it seems like a better start.


-wayne

Follow-Ups:
- Re: One space proposal
  - From: Earl Hood

References:
- One space proposal
  - From: Bryan Costales

Prev by Date: Re: DoS and Replay protection for message signatures
Next by Date: Re: DoS and Replay protection for message signatures
Previous by thread: Re: One space proposal
Next by thread: Re: One space proposal
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread