Re: [ietf-dkim] issue with relaxed body canonicalization?

> Are any MTAs currently *signing* using relaxed bodies? If yes, then
> the answer to the above question is moot and we should keep it.

Ours has the ability to do it but our default is simple for headers and 
body.  I also have no data as to whether this makes any difference (sorry).
--
Arvel



_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html