On 16 May 2011, at 14:26, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Yes, http://www.opendkim.org/stats/report.html#hdr_canon says
Header canonicalization use:
canonicalization count domains passed
simple 653688 6786 591938
relaxed 3940377 56621 3640854
It does, but how does one interpret that? Certainly the weight of relaxed
versus simple passes implies a user desire for relaxed canonicalisation.
However, the 90% versus 92% is meaningless without making certain assumptions.
If all these messages were originally properly signed, then the 2% represents a
20% reduction in false negatives, but only if we assume that canonicalisation
method was selected at random or that choice of canonicalisation method was
statistically independent of the likelihood of breakage - the latter might be
plausible.
However if some of the messages were never properly signed (whether failed
attempts to spoof, or administrative or technical failure), then that 20% must
be higher. It could even represent 100% reduction in false negatives due to
(otherwise benign) in-flight modifications.
Although they only differ by 2% (90% simple vs 92% relaxed), such
percentages would be superb for tools like Spamassassin. I'd expect
at least 99% from a cryptographic tool.
--
Ian Eiloart
Postmaster, University of Sussex
+44 (0) 1273 87-3148
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html