>The stuff having to do with producing an alternate version of the >text is certainly wrong insofar as there's no extra visible copy >produced, but I've always interpreted that language as referring to >the "internal" copy that gets fed to the hash function. It certainly >could be that I've just been around the text and the algorithms long >enough to believe that must be what the current text means so I >didn't think twice about it.
I tried to be careful to distinguish between the language that describes how the verifier uses l= to manage what's fed to the hash, which is OK, and the language which suggests that it produces an edited message, which is not. Take a look and see if you agree. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
