ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations

2011-05-29 23:07:49
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Alessandro 
Vesely
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 9:29 AM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations

On 27/May/11 19:16, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I'm all for including experimental code in future releases of our
stuff, especially if it's an experiment other implementations are
trying.  But I need to see a spec first, or enough detail that I
could write one.

For the body, I brought some ideas[1].  For MIME header fields,
punctuation and boundaries need to be omitted as well.  For other
header fields, including the DKIM-Signature, it is probably enough to
remove just any white space.
[1] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2011q2/016692.html

IMHO, the "hard parts" of the code are (i) selecting a MIME parser,
and (ii) finding a good way to structure experimental C14Ns and handle
double (triple?) signatures in the existing code.

One of the elegant things about the current canonicalizations is that they can 
stream.  I think a system that's MIME-aware can too, but possibly not, and in 
any case having to teach a DKIM implementation about MIME will make it a lot 
more complicated and expensive.  If we have to go down that road, I think 
working on DOSETA and MIMEAUTH is the way to go.

If we want the lower-hanging fruits, we might take the list of things MLMs like 
to do to messages and find ways to canonicalize those.  Fortunately, we made a 
list of the common ones in the MLM document.


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