This was done in in 2006. I took up Stephan's suggestion to write an I-D http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-santos-dkim-strip-00
It addressed the concerns related to NOFWS and that of which is still present with RELAXED. Dave CROCKER wrote: > > On 5/16/2011 9:00 AM, John R. Levine wrote: >> The point of relaxed canonicalization was to deal with the kind of small >> changes that dusty copies of sendmail make, not to handle every possible >> message mutation that more or less renders the same. > > > The underlying concern here actually is pretty reasonable: Variations that do > not affect the appearance or semantics of a message could reasonably still > permit a signature to verify. > > The problem is that the working group was not able to develop a... > workable... > canonicalization algorithm to achieve this complete robustness. In the > extreme, > this is a research topic. Certainly it is a delicate engineering tasks, > since > too much robustness against change can easily introduce security holes. > > But, then, that's why the working group debate the issue so extensively and > the > result did gain working group consensus. > > Since the list of algorithms is defined to be extensible, anyone feeling that > an > additional algorithm is warranted is free to define it and seek community > consensus for it. > > d/ > -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html