ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Relaxed body canonicalization

2006-06-27 13:19:20
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 02:52:14PM -0400, Tony Hansen allegedly wrote:

Why was nofws for the body defined? What are the use cases that it was
trying to prevent from happening? Has anyone using domainkeys hit any of
those cases? Is anyone who is using domainkeys also using nofws? Or are
all domainkey installations using simple?

Both.

We know that there will be problems with the use of simple for headers.
Why aren't we talking about getting rid of that? I ran numerous
cross-platform tests using c=simple for headers. I had to jump through
hoops, e.g. avoiding gateway systems, to get them to mostly pass.

As has been stated before, choosing a canonicalization is not just a
choice of survivability, it's also a security choice. It's been made
very clear to us that some senders prefer simple over relaxed because
they prefer the security trade-off over the survivability trade-off.


Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html