On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:48:23 -0000, Michael Thomas <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Tony Hansen wrote:
I have to say that this is even more opaque to me then what is in the
current draft.
I went through Charles' cases and I specifically didn't see the one that
I'm actually interested in:
before:
Last-Header: foo
<CRLF>
<CRLF>
becomes:
Last-Header: foo
<CRLF>
in transit. What I do know is that the current draft handles this case,
even though it's not entirely clear and could use an informative note
to make it more obvious. What's not clear to me is whether anything
new 1) has that property and 2) is any clearer than just adding
informative
text to the current draft. Redoing normative text at this point shouldn't
be done lightly, IMO, and I really don't see what the gain is even if
your text works for this case.
OK, let us look at that case:
Last-Header: foo <- last header
<CRLF> <- separator between headers & body
<CRLF> <- a body consisting of one empty line
Here is my proposed text:
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.
So that emtpy line is removed for canonicalization purposes, and no lines
remain, so that is it.
Your second example already has an empty <body>, so there is nothng to be
done. So both examples canonicalize into <empty>, as expected.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html