Stephen Farrell wrote:
Mike,
Michael Thomas wrote:
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.
I think I agree that "l=0;bh=;" is wrong, but I'm not clear what you're
saying that "bh=" should contain when "l=0"?
Just the normal base 64 encoding of the 20 byte output of SHA1/SHA256 --
nothing different than normal, eg l= > 0.
Mike, not knowing what those values are offhand :)
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html