>> DKIM-Signature: .... c=relaxed/relaxed; // dupe >> DKIM-Signature: .... c=relaxed/relaxed; // dupe >> DKIM-Signature: .... c=relaxed/relaxed; // dupe >> DKIM-Signature: .... c=simple/relaxed; // other signer >> DKIM-Signature: .... c=relaxed/relaxed; // other signer > > You need two header and one body canonicalizations in that example. And that > presumes there's no "l=", which creates another dimension in the matrix of > canonicalizations you need to run.
I don't see much benefit for saving the header hash, since it depends on the order that the headers are listed in the h= header. On the other hand, doing both the simple and relaxed body hashes in a pass over the body would handle about 99.999% of the signatures that anyone cares about. I haven't seen many l= signatures, other than from Cisco, and I don't think I've seen any where the l= didn't cover the whole message. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
