[ietf-dkim] Relaxed body canonicalization
dotis at mail-abuse.org
Tue Jun 27 04:56:07 PDT 2006
On Jun 27, 2006, at 12:28 PM, Jon Callas wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2006, at 11:41 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> I'd still like it left in and if it's unused or providing no
>> value, to remove it
>> at DS.
> I agree with Mike. There's plenty of time to drop it. If we get
> closer to DS and experience is showing we don't need it, it's easy
> to drop it. It is very difficult to put it back in again if we drop
> it now and regret that decision.
I also agree with Mike's view. It would be unfortunate to find some
gateway or MTA is not accommodated which represents some percentage
of users. Until testing is more complete, the minor change afforded
by the relaxed body canonicalization may represent something
statistically significant. If not, it should be removed. Having
information makes this choice an easier call, where removing this
option now will negate an ability to collect information that
isolates the problem.
More information about the ietf-dkim