On 19 May 2011, at 04:17, John Levine wrote:
Since I more or less started this, my assertion was that relaxed doesn't
do much better than simple, which at this point I think we can categorize
as "not disproven."
Probably true, but if the difference between 10% broken and 8% broken
signatures is independent of whether the email is spam, then actually "relaxed"
seems to be producing a 20% reduction in signature breakage.
I'd argue that a 20% reduction in broken signatures *is* actually "much
better".
The point I was making was that ever more complex ways to decide that
two mutated versions of a message are "the same" aren't likely to help
much, certainly not compared to the large cost of implementing code
even more complex than what relaxed does now.
To determine that, we'd need a pareto analysis of breakage modes. Presumably
lists that aren't re-signing are responsible for some of this, as are broken
signing mechanisms. The questions remaining are, "is there anything left after
excluding those two cases?", and "how much of that could be fixed easily?".
And anyway, if your
goal is for your message to survive, you should armor it better, not
come up with more arcane ways to declare that it may be bleeding
heavily but it's not dead yet.
--
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