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."
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 likel
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> I don't think there is anything reliable there from I can see, but its
>> not unreasonable for one to hypothesize that there might be a direct
>> correlation between the number of hops and the tendency to use
>> relaxed/relaxed. It might be interesting to see if that m
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 1:49 PM
> To: IETF-DKIM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations
>
> Whatever the actual reason, since its not the defau
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> Ian wrote:
>> These aren't contradictory. If spammers are spreading their load across
>> large numbers of domains, then it's entirely feasible that top 1000
>> signing domains are not spammers, but that spammers collectively are
>> (or will one day be) responsible for
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Eiloart [mailto:i...@sussex.ac.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:39 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New canonicalizations
>
> > According to what we have, the biggest users of "relaxed/relaxed" are
>
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On 17/May/11 20:17, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> The proposed change tries to move some of the processing into
>> the parameter, and hence is not an interface specification (unless,
>> for example, the goal is to tell the caller to truncate the body,
>> rather than have the
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> Hector wrote:
>> The collection you have is an aggregate of many sites. However, in
>> reality each site will have a different PCN.
> Naturally. And we can select for the data for a specific site if
> that's useful. But in terms of input for developing a standard,
On 17/May/11 20:17, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 5/17/2011 1:54 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> The remaining changes are inconsistent with the rest of the section or don't
>> clarify anything. For example, the "hash-alg" function on the body-hash line
>> takes the canonicalized body and the l-param
On 17 May 2011, at 20:02, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>
>> Based on what I see, one SWAG is that the "good" intention people are
>> using the defaults or relaxed/simple, and spammers tend to use
>> relaxed/relaxed as the reduced restraint. By far, in my samplings,
>> the largest group are spa
