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

[Arvel Hathcock]

We've got some confusion going on internally here.  I'm trying to get to 
the bottom of it and will report results ASAP.

-- 
Arvel Hathcock
CEO, Alt-N Technologies
http://www.altn.com


Michael Thomas wrote:
> 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.
>>