Paul Hoffman wrote:
#13 3.4.5, 3.5 and 3.7. "l=0" is allowed, but "bh=" is REQUIRED,
which is a bit
of a contradiction.
"l=0;bh=;" seems valid.
It doesn't seem valid to me, and it's certainly not the natural thing that
an implementor would do which is to just take the value of SHA[1|256]_Final
and compare it against the bh= value. Leaving it as is doesn't create an
unnecessary new case.
And "l=" is not mentioned when saying how to calculate
"bh=". I guess the right thing to do might be to add some mention of
"l=" when
talking about calculating "bh=",
Agree.
I don't see what the problem is: l= is the canonical byte count, and that's
just as true with bh as is was before bh was invented.
I think I'd prefer to outlaw "l=0" and make "bh="
optional for just that case, but that might be a bit broken for
backwards
compatability.
It also adds another special case.
Not to mention that l=0 is a perfectly valid 2822 mail message.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html