Re: opendkim body hash did not verify problem

From: SM <>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 23:19:59 -0700

At 21:16 24-04-10, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>Interesting observation. I wonder if this was ever pointed out to
>the DKIM working group. I'll do so myself shortly. I expect,
>though, that the response will be that DKIM operates at a level
>nearer to the transport than the interpretation of the header
>fields, so it's not really DKIM's concern to be accomodating
>here. That is, the "matching" to which RFC2045 refers is a semantic
>matter, which is above the level at which DKIM operates.

I don't recall it being mentioned. Yes, that would be the
responses. However, relaxed is canonicalization where we can make
allowances for mail format variations (excluding the two spaces issue
which is MTA specific).

>Also, I would bet real money that changing courier is going to be a
>whole lot easier in the short term than changing a published
>standards track RFC.


>As SM points out, OpenDKIM could accomodate this either in the
>library or in the filter, but then again I don't want it to become a
>repository of hacks to accomodate issues with various other software
>packages if that can be avoided.

The hacks are in OpenDKIM (the milter). If we do such hacks in the
library, it's an overhead and it complicate matters for people using
the library for their implementation. I am not saying that the issue
will not be addressed. If anyone wants it, ask and it can be done if
it is the general agreement.

Received on Sun Apr 25 2010 - 06:21:29 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Oct 29 2012 - 23:19:47 PST