[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: nmh 1.8?
From: |
Steffen Nurpmeso |
Subject: |
Re: nmh 1.8? |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Dec 2022 19:20:37 +0100 |
User-agent: |
s-nail v14.9.24-383-g2889cb06b9 |
Ken Hornstein wrote in
<20221228151732.BD63B1D20D7@pb-smtp20.pobox.com>:
...
|MUA that generates that header or checks it. I'm not even sure we
|calculate the digest correct for text types, it was a mess in terms
|of implementation, _and_ MD5 is Officially Considered Broken. Calling
...
I would think that finding two plain text files with the same MD5
that a mail message receiver finds an acceptable read is rather
unlikely though. (Just generally speaking. CRUX Linux for
example uses signify for package checksums, but still generates
MD5 checksums as a fallback. CRC32 is also used still, but noone
would claim it is secure.)
Have a good slip/slide.
--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)
- nmh 1.8?, David Levine, 2022/12/26
- Re: nmh 1.8?, Ken Hornstein, 2022/12/26
- Re: nmh 1.8?, Ralph Corderoy, 2022/12/28
- Re: nmh 1.8?, Paul Fox, 2022/12/28
- Re: nmh 1.8?, Ralph Corderoy, 2022/12/31
- Re: nmh 1.8?, David Levine, 2022/12/31
- Re: nmh 1.8?, Ralph Corderoy, 2022/12/31
- Re: nmh 1.8?, Ken Hornstein, 2022/12/31
- Re: nmh 1.8?, Ken Hornstein, 2022/12/31
- Re: nmh 1.8?, Ken Hornstein, 2022/12/31
Re: nmh 1.8?, Kevin Cosgrove, 2022/12/31