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