Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself
johnl at iecc.com
Wed Dec 6 12:25:39 PST 2006
>But of course I don't want them to be "likely to survive". I want a system
>that is robust enough that they "always survive".
As I recall, we agreed that is specifically not a goal of DKIM. If
you want a signing scheme designed to survive all sorts of hostile
gateways, there's already S/MIME. The limited c18n in DKIM is
intended to survive only the most common sorts of transit relays.
Honestly, I'd be more inclined to go in the other direction and
deprecate the relaxed body c18n, since it is my impression that the
simple one works in practice for nearly any message that relaxed does,
and relaxed is more complicated and may be vulnerable to ASCII art
More information about the ietf-dkim