Hector Santos wrote:
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.
Doesn't both translate to a <CRLF> for the SIMPLE c14n?
I'd hope that they do this, a canonicalization should eliminate
this rather obscure difference. But if Charles reads the spec.
in a way where that's apparently not the case, then maybe Eric
can find some better wording for this detail. In AUTH48, this
is editorial and completely unrelated to Lisa's old DISCUSS.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html