Michael Thomas wrote:
No I was not. My code up until very recently was making the same mistake.
What is strongly implied in the current draft offers *superior*
robustness in
the real world. That is, it is immune to additions *and* deletions of
trailing
CRLF's. That is not an appeal to installed base, it's an appeal to a more
robust spec. As it happens, the spec merely needs to make more obvious
what the normative text already says and we will have an improved spec.
What you experienced with the "Alpha Code" out there is normal. Whatever
the final outcome, at the end of the day, the official RFC is whats
important here and those experiences, insights, etc, needs to be
transcribed in the technical specs for the reasons you stated - the NEXT
GUY should not have to be dealing with these protocol design questions.
---
HLS
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html