https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2278
--- Comment #5 from Simon Arlott <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Phil Pennock from comment #2) > Per the RFC, `b=;` and `b= ;` at the end are equivalent and anything > assigning semantic value to the whitespace there, and failing validation, is > broken. > > There's special text in 3.5 around the b= tag in this header for signing, so > it's understandable that it's handled specially, but if the issue you > highlighted is the root cause, then Exim is fully spec compliant and the > verifiers are not. The verifier is Exim, and the problem is that Exim's signing process should not have a space in there when it computes the hash, because it won't be there when verified. The specification states the "b=" must be an "empty string" (but this is not explicitly specified as "no whitespace"). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
