On 16/May/11 15:00, John R. Levine wrote: > In retrospect, it probably would have been better only to provide > simple and tell people more firmly to do the signing after and the > checking before any local modification.
That implies hop to hop rather than end to end. What would the advantage over SPF be then? > Perhaps Murray has data that says whether relaxed verifies much more > often than simple does. 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 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. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
