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
