On 3/31/2011 9:08 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > I don’t think it’s a silly question. In fact I recently approached the > Mailman > people to explore this question from their perspective. > > It may be interesting or even somewhat useful to set up a new header > canonicalization that tolerates this kind of thing for lists, but the real > problem is that, statistically speaking, a list that adds a mnemonic to a > Subject: field in the way you’re discussing usually also does other things to > the list that will change the body. The MLM draft we have approaching WGLC > talks about several of these. It would be pretty complicated to construct a > canonicalization that anticipates all or even most of those.
To add to this for folks: Murray and I have in fact been considering developing an added canonicalization scheme that is relatively more robust against a broader set of things that cause breakage. His OpenDKIM has been developing some data about a set. The list behaviors are part of that. We haven't gotten into the technical detail yet. > I think a more interesting idea would be to use DOSETA to sign the MIME parts > instead of or in addition to the whole message. I’m starting to plan out an > implementation and will be looking for a couple of other sites interested in > conducting some experiments. While I also think that's interesting to explore, I'm not so enamored of it yet, largely because I see it as likely to be too messy to be practical at scale. But that's just intuition. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
