[ietf-dkim] Re: bh=; l=0;

[Michael Thomas]

Paul Hoffman wrote:

> At 7:23 AM -0700 7/2/06, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I don't see what the problem is: l= is the canonical byte count, and 
>> that's
>> just as true with bh as is was before bh was invented.
>
>
> The question is, what string do you hash when l= is given? I am 
> interpreting the spec as that you has the string with the length given 
> in l=; are you reading it as you hash the entire body regardless of 
> the presence of l=?

No, the former lest l= mean nothing at all. I don't seem to recall this 
being an
interop problem in any of the implementations we have now either.

       Mike