Charles Lindsey wrote:
Anyway, here is some wording:
The "simple" body canonicalization removes empty lines from the end
of the
body until either the last line is non-empty, or no lines remain. An
empty
line is a line of zero length after removal of any terminating CRLF. If
the body is not now empty and the last line is not already terminated by
CRLF, a CRLF is added to it.
INFORMATIVE NOTE: Following [RFC 2822}, the CRLF which separates the
header fields from the body is NOT part of the body, and therefore is
never presented to the signing or verification algorithm.
I think I agree with the effect, but I wish I could offer something
terser, but that seems hard since this is dealing with the interaction
of potentially different header canon and body canon.
Does the INFORMATIVE NOTE imply that the following two emails
canonicalize to the same thing?
---------------
Last-Header: blahCRLF
CRLF
lineOne: blah1CRLF
lineTwo: blah2CRLF
---------------
---------------
Last-Header: blahCRLF
lineOne: blah1CRLF
lineTwo: blah2CRLF
---------------
And yes, I purposely have a body that matches the header syntax.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html