Hector Santos wrote:
I'm not grasping the problem.
Apparently the canonicalization of "no body" (no CRLF CRLF) is
different from "empty body" (only CRLF CRLF). It's odd enough
to mention it in the spec. (maybe as note or example).
I think the issue is being overblown.
If your implementation treats "no body" like "empty body" and
other implementations don't we've to agree on one way to get
this right. Or rather Eric has to describe it unambiguously.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html