[ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations
Murray S. Kucherawy
msk at cloudmark.com
Sun May 29 21:04:38 PDT 2011
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 9:29 AM
> To: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations
> On 27/May/11 19:16, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > I'm all for including experimental code in future releases of our
> > stuff, especially if it's an experiment other implementations are
> > trying. But I need to see a spec first, or enough detail that I
> > could write one.
> For the body, I brought some ideas. For MIME header fields,
> punctuation and boundaries need to be omitted as well. For other
> header fields, including the DKIM-Signature, it is probably enough to
> remove just any white space.
>  http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2011q2/016692.html
> IMHO, the "hard parts" of the code are (i) selecting a MIME parser,
> and (ii) finding a good way to structure experimental C14Ns and handle
> double (triple?) signatures in the existing code.
One of the elegant things about the current canonicalizations is that they can stream. I think a system that's MIME-aware can too, but possibly not, and in any case having to teach a DKIM implementation about MIME will make it a lot more complicated and expensive. If we have to go down that road, I think working on DOSETA and MIMEAUTH is the way to go.
If we want the lower-hanging fruits, we might take the list of things MLMs like to do to messages and find ways to canonicalize those. Fortunately, we made a list of the common ones in the MLM document.
More information about the ietf-dkim