ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim

2007-01-09 09:07:58
At 11:23 AM +0000 1/9/07, Charles Lindsey wrote:
I still, cannot see why one would want to canonicalize a genuinely empty <body> intpo "CRLF", nor do some others on this list. I gather that some implementations do not do so either, and neither did the original DK, and many on the list thought they were standardizing the DK behaviour.

It doesn't matter which direction a canonicalization goes, as long as it is completely clear what to do.

Is this horse dead yet? With Eric's proposed change, are there any open issues? Tony posted a somewhat-cryptic note yesterday; is that resolved?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Domain Assurance Council
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>