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
