Michael Thomas wrote:
Simply stated, as the draft is currently worded, the simple body
canonicalization
will be immune to additions *and* deletions of of CRLF's at the end of
the body
in all cases. The proposed change to the normative behavior, on the
other hand,
will not be immune to deletions. Deletions are something that happen in
real life,
and we have experienced then. Changing the normative sense of the draft
at this
point will reduce the number of verified messages.
Thanks for the explanation.
Sounds like a fairly telling argument to me, if people are generally
seeing such deletions.
I will also add that finding this has been an extremely maddening
adventure as
a developer. If we change it to what Mark and others are advocating, we are
condemning all future DKIM developers to find this problem themselves just
as I have and be faced with unpleasant alternatives of how to work
around it,
if they even find it in the first place. I don't wish my pain for this
one on anybody.
There you confused me - aren't we going to make it easy for every
subsequent coder by telling them about this in advance? But its ok
that I'm confused, I often am:-)
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html