Mark Martinec wrote: > a public key in TXT RR like the following would be alright:
> k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSq<CR><LF><SP>GSIb3DQEBAQUA... > while the one without a <SP> would not be syntactically correct: > k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSq<CR><LF>GSIb3DQEBAQUA... > It seems the requirement to insist on LWSP (e.g. a WSP must > follow CRLF) in a non- message header context is very much > artificial and unwarranted. The ABNF also uses [FWS] with a very similar effect. The main difference between [FWS] and LWSP is that the latter allows "folded" lines consisting only of trailing white space: "A" [FWS] "B" allows AB, A<WSP>B, A<CRLF><WSP>B, etc. But you would need <obs-FWS> to match any A<CRLF><WSP><CRLF><WSP>B "A" LWSP "B" has this ugly <obs-FWS> feature. It's a clear MUST NOT for RFC 2822 generators. The DKIM base RFC uses a clean <FWS> without <obs-FWS>, see (2.3) But it also uses the 4234 <LWSP> in (2.4), sigh. It's IMO a bit late to address your concern, but maybe Eric could still do a s/LWSP/[FWS]/g in AUTH48 eliminating LWSP everywhere (?) Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
