Mark Delany wrote:
>A good number of sites reject bare LFs.
>
Also: note I'm talking about bare CR's. Do any do that?
Yes. And some convert bare CRs to CRLFs. And some silently drop the CRs.
And some leave them unchanged. And some sites even make use of more than
one of these modes of operation depending on message source or destination.
Like it or not, you are not going to be able to define a canonicalization that
can tolerate all the cases and possible transformations. My best advice is not
to try. Signing messages that are syntactically invalid is going to be
unreliable and the only solution is to stop creating such messages.
Ned
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html