On 19 May 2011, at 04:17, John Levine wrote: > Since I more or less started this, my assertion was that relaxed doesn't > do much better than simple, which at this point I think we can categorize > as "not disproven."
Probably true, but if the difference between 10% broken and 8% broken signatures is independent of whether the email is spam, then actually "relaxed" seems to be producing a 20% reduction in signature breakage. I'd argue that a 20% reduction in broken signatures *is* actually "much better". > The point I was making was that ever more complex ways to decide that > two mutated versions of a message are "the same" aren't likely to help > much, certainly not compared to the large cost of implementing code > even more complex than what relaxed does now. To determine that, we'd need a pareto analysis of breakage modes. Presumably lists that aren't re-signing are responsible for some of this, as are broken signing mechanisms. The questions remaining are, "is there anything left after excluding those two cases?", and "how much of that could be fixed easily?". > And anyway, if your > goal is for your message to survive, you should armor it better, not > come up with more arcane ways to declare that it may be bleeding > heavily but it's not dead yet. -- Ian Eiloart Postmaster, University of Sussex +44 (0) 1273 87-3148 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html