[Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]

[Michael Thomas]

Tony Hansen wrote:
>
>
> That's why the issue was raised.
>
> I firmly believe that we *intended* to canonicalize each of these cases
> into the empty body
>
>   
Well, that may or may not have been the intent, but the current spec 
does say that
and it's my claim that what the current spec is doing is *useful* given 
the mangling
that happens in the infrastructure. That is, we're getting better pass 
rates when we
implement the spec as it is written now.

       Mike