And that's where the contention comes in.
I firmly believe that what you write below is what we *intended*.
However, it is *not* what is described in the current spec.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Mark Delany wrote:
(Did you mean to include Last-Header: in the following examples?)
Sure. In which case the answer is that the canonicalized output of 2-5
should be:
-----------------------
-----------------------
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html