On 16 May 2011, at 14:26, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > > 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
It does, but how does one interpret that? Certainly the weight of relaxed versus simple passes implies a user desire for relaxed canonicalisation. However, the 90% versus 92% is meaningless without making certain assumptions. If all these messages were originally properly signed, then the 2% represents a 20% reduction in false negatives, but only if we assume that canonicalisation method was selected at random or that choice of canonicalisation method was statistically independent of the likelihood of breakage - the latter might be plausible. However if some of the messages were never properly signed (whether failed attempts to spoof, or administrative or technical failure), then that 20% must be higher. It could even represent 100% reduction in false negatives due to (otherwise benign) in-flight modifications. > 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. -- Ian Eiloart Postmaster, University of Sussex +44 (0) 1273 87-3148 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
