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

[Stephen Farrell]

Michael Thomas wrote:

> Simply stated, as the draft is currently worded, the simple body 
> canonicalization
> will be immune to additions *and* deletions of of CRLF's at the end of 
> the body
> in all cases. The proposed change to the normative behavior, on the 
> other hand,
> will not be immune to deletions. Deletions are something that happen in 
> real life,
> and we have experienced then. Changing the normative sense of the draft 
> at this
> point will reduce the number of verified messages.

Thanks for the explanation.

Sounds like a fairly telling argument to me, if people are generally
seeing such deletions.

> I will also add that finding this has been an extremely maddening 
> adventure as
> a developer. If we change it to what Mark and others are advocating, we are
> condemning all future DKIM developers to find this problem themselves just
> as I have and be faced with unpleasant alternatives of how to work 
> around it,
> if they even find it in the first place. I don't wish my pain for this 
> one on anybody.

There you confused me - aren't we going to make it easy for every
subsequent coder by telling them about this in advance? But its ok
that I'm confused, I often am:-)

S.