>But of course I don't want them to be "likely to survive". I want a system >that is robust enough that they "always survive".
As I recall, we agreed that is specifically not a goal of DKIM. If you want a signing scheme designed to survive all sorts of hostile gateways, there's already S/MIME. The limited c18n in DKIM is intended to survive only the most common sorts of transit relays. Honestly, I'd be more inclined to go in the other direction and deprecate the relaxed body c18n, since it is my impression that the simple one works in practice for nearly any message that relaxed does, and relaxed is more complicated and may be vulnerable to ASCII art hacks. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
