Stephen Farrell wrote:
"The canonical text can be thought of as a virtual representation of
the
actual input. In particular, a body without any lines (ie, a null
body) is canonicalized as a single CRLF, which its canonical length
set to 2 (l=2). Note that the canonical length still applies to the
canonical text so an input of:
Last-Header:<CRLF>
<CRLF>
No. a) It's creating a "surprise" CRLF when none previously existed.
b) It differs from DK for no good reason.
There is a perfectly good reason: some things in the mail path strip
trailing CRLF from the
body. We've experienced it firsthand and it's not uncommon, and would
reduce the survival
rate if changed.
Fair enough. So, given that there is confusion, what's your counter
proposal for clarifying text?
BTW: we're *waaaaaaay* past last call here. This text has been here for
time immemorial.
All I propose we do is clarify the meaning of what is actually in the
draft now surrounding a
corner case. I think the bar should be a lot higher for actually
changing the text to mean
something that it doesn't currently imply.
Mike
(BTW - I assume there are only two sensible things to do here, so
we can just get two text proposals and see which achieves rough
consensus.)
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html