On Sun 15/Jun/2014 08:15:18 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote: > On 6/15/2014 8:01 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> >> Somewhat less bogus than a new canonicalization that imparts new >> semantics; a new tag would, one would think, always impart new semantics >> in the first place. > > I do not understand this predilection for trying to change the DKIM base > engine. It doesn't need it. > > I also don't understand the construct of 'special handling', nevermind > not liking the idea of it, especially since it explicitly creates the > complexity of "depends on the header field". > > What I was suggesting was merely registering a new canonicalization > algorithm. Legacy DKIM implementations won't understand it. New ones > (presumably also modified to know about DMARC) will. > > The new canonicalization should have actual differences from the current > ones that are deemed worthy for general use. > > For example, how about 'very-relaxed' which is like relaxed but > eliminates all WSP from the calculation rather than just compressing it?
Let's take the occasion to also have it eliminate quotation marks. See http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2011q2/016518.html and following discussions. Ale _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
