Re: [Asrg] New DKIM canonicalization to avoid broken signatures

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On 30/Apr/10 19:58, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>  From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
>>  We'd need to discuss the details, implement them, and test.
>>
>>  Anyone interested?
>
> I'm up for the conversation, and OpenDKIM is a decent place to exercise a well-considered alternative canonicalization scheme if the participants can reach consensus.  If something comes out of that which makes sense and works, it becomes a candidate for standardization.

This just to note that a similar approach --considering MIME entities, 
that Charles Lindsey called "a somewhat more aggressive 
canonicalization"-- was introduced about October 2006 [CL1].

One month later, Charles wrote again [CL2], giving a proof of concept 
in Perl [UNC].  Some of the WG responses may illuminate on why John 
suggested to change list for this discussion...

> But I have no illusions that any of that will be an easy trek, technically

I think we'd just need to find a suitable MIME library in C, and 
experiment so as to come out with "an Internet Draft documenting a new 
proposed canonicalization" (in Barry's words [BL]).

However, before possibly shifting to yet another list (opendkim-*), it 
may be useful to discuss whether we want to limit signatures to parts 
that won't be dropped, e.g. using l= or similar tag.  For example, 
alternative HTML text poses a difficulty, because either part can be 
used, or dropped.  How about adding a "part-hash" in each entity's header?

>   or politically.

I'd leave esoteric stuff to somebody else :-)

-- 
[CL1] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q4/006305.html
[CL2] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q4/006629.html
[UNC] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl/uncode/uncode.html
[BL] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q4/006648.html