Ok, I'm very sorry for the confusion on this topic. We did a code
review and found that what I said before was wrong.
In our implementation, an empty body leads to hashing of nothing (no
CRLF). I think this goes against 3.4.3.
I'm going to wait for the final verdict on what I should be doing and
then make a correction to our code based on this groups collective wisdom.
--
Arvel
Michael Thomas wrote:
That's funny because my null mail is not agreeing at your reflector.
That is:
Subject: foo<CRLF>
<CRLF>
the body should be canonicalized as <CRLF>, with l=2. Perhaps it's
the l=2 that tripping you up?
Mike
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
> By the way, how do you canonicalize a null body? Do you calculate the
> hash of a null string, or do you canonicalize a null body to <CR><LF>
> and calculate the hash of that?
Sorry for the delay. We do the latter. For both simple and relaxed a
null body canonicalizes to <CR><LF>.
The spec makes this clear for simple:
"If there is no trailing CRLF on the message, a CRLF is added"
but it doesn't specifically say that for relaxed.
_______________________________________________
dkim-dev mailing list
dkim-dev(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-dev