On 5/16/2011 10:40 AM, Mark Delany wrote: > On 16May11, Alessandro Vesely allegedly wrote: >> On 16/May/11 15:41, John R. Levine wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> This tells me that the benefit from relaxed is at most pretty small. >> >> OTOH, comparing the "count" fields of those two lines, 86% relaxed vs >> 14% simple, says that such kind of benefit is really really wanted. > > But that's a perceived benefit, not an actual one.
I agree that the above does not give us insight into actual benefit. Rather, it tells us something about beliefs and goals of signers; they chose one or the other because they /believed/ it would be helpful. As to whether it really was, we can't see here. > Folk think they need "relaxed" to significantly increase survivability > but that's not the case given the stats above. So yo may be right that > folk really really want it, but they don't really really need it. Sorry, but I believe the above also does /not/ help us to understand actual survivability differences. To assess that difference, the experiment needs to send the same set of message twice, one with each type of canonicalization, and then see what the survival differences are. The problem with the above is the biasing factor of signers' choosing to use one or the other, based on criteria we can't know about. Their criteria might have greatly affected actual survival rates. Or might not have... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
