John R Levine wrote:
I'd really rather we put it on the shelf and concentrated on the core
signature and verification. We all seem to agree that we need to improve
the body canonicalization rules, but I don't see any work on that beyond
my skeleton testing setup at http://forward.sp.am.
I'm sort of surprised that we haven't had any discussion about this
since the -01 draft came out. The -01 draft allows the header and body
to be canonicalized differently, and defines a new canonicalization
type "relaxed" which is primarily intended for the headers, though we
hedged by allowing it to be used for the body as well. I've been
running header=relaxed body=simple for several months at least, and
we just upgraded our pilot server at cisco a week or so ago.
As far as I can tell, the simple body canonicalization seems to work
pretty well -- I'm not sure I recall anything that I could attribute
to a failure in the body canonicalization that wouldn't defeat _any_
attempt (ie, it was mangled).
Is your test site seeing different results?
Mike
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org