[dkim-dev] Do you have an interoperable DKIM of the recent spec?

[Michael Thomas]

That's funny because my null mail is not agreeing at your reflector.
That is:

Subject: foo<CRLF>
<CRLF>

the body should be canonicalized as <CRLF>, with l=2. Perhaps it's
the l=2 that tripping you up?

       Mike

Arvel Hathcock wrote:
> > By the way, how do you canonicalize a null body?  Do you calculate the
> > hash of a null string, or do you canonicalize a null body to <CR><LF>
> > and calculate the hash of that?
>
> Sorry for the delay.  We do the latter.  For both simple and relaxed a 
> null body canonicalizes to <CR><LF>.
>
> The spec makes this clear for simple:
>
> "If there is no trailing CRLF on the message, a CRLF is added"
>
> but it doesn't specifically say that for relaxed.
>