Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > No, but the patch fixes a signing problem when relaxed body > canonicalization is used, meaning the signature in 0.msg may not be valid > in the first place. The signer would have to apply the patch as well.
The signature seems correct, I verified canonification with Mail::DKIM (count is exact to the end of the original message), and signature verifies with Mail::DKIM as well as with dkim-milter 1.2.0. Mark ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ dkim-milter-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dkim-milter-discuss
