ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [dkim-dev] need an interpretation of the base spec

2008-06-03 15:26:08
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Tony Hansen wrote:
Right now, I'm leaning towards thinking that #2 is correct. What say the
rest of you?

Discarding FWS and tokenizing is probably a common implementation tactic, 
which favours #2.

I'm inclined to say it's an errata issue (and would offer #2 as the 
preferred implementation) unless someone can show precedent for resolution 
of something similar in the past.
_______________________________________________
dkim-dev mailing list
dkim-dev(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/dkim-dev

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