ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations

2011-05-16 12:48:36
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 10:00 AM
To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations

My guess is that admins just don't understand any of the subtleties,
have heard lore that "relaxed" is "better" and just click "relaxed"
wherever they find it. It may also be the case that some implementations
don't even have separate nerd knobs for headers and body
canonicalization.

Some of the data (especially message-specific stuff) are certainly skewed by 
the huge senders that use one or the other.  It's more interesting to look at 
percentage by domains.

For the most part what I hear is "relaxed/simple" is the BCP, but Gmail (for 
example) uses "relaxed/relaxed" which really pulls things quite a bit in one 
direction.


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