> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 7:00 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] New Version Notification - > draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-03.txt > > Correct, I missed different canonicalizations. Body canonicalizations > are not signature-specific and at most two of them are needed, thus we > can get away with something like > > DKIM-Canonicalized-Body: relaxed: > BLAHBLAH.... > DKIM-Canonicalized-Body: simple: > blahblah.... > > Tag l= doesn't play, unless we want to report hashes too.
That's not true; if "l=" is there in one signature and not in another, then those two will produce different canonicalized bodies, even if they use the same canonicalization. > It's only use, AFAICS, is to relate the A-R in the second part with > one or more A-Rs in the reported message, which may be not obvious in > some edge cases. Actually in the context of the report, I would trust the report's A-R and none of the quoted ones. I know for certain where it originated. And in that sense, the "authserv-id" doesn't really matter here. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
