[ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations

[Alessandro Vesely]

On 16/May/11 19:00, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 05/16/2011 09:39 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> 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...
> 
> My guess is that admins just don't understand any of the subtleties,
> have heard lore that "relaxed" is "better" and just click "relaxed"
> wherever they find it. It may also be the case that some implementations
> don't even have separate nerd knobs for headers and body canonicalization.

However, Murray's stats show some difference in the choice of relaxed:

Header canonicalization use:
canonicalization	count	domains	passed
simple	                653688	6786	591938
relaxed	                3940377	56621	3640854

Body canonicalization use:
canonicalization	count	domains	passed
simple	                1187858	11526	1096204
relaxed	                3406207	51818	3136588

For the body count, we have 74% relaxed vs 26% simple, while it is 86%
relaxed vs 14% simple for the header.  There is a 12% difference
toward relaxing the header, which implies some thought or testing.