DKIMCore promotes the use of simple body canocalization: http://dkimcore.org/deployment/dkim.html.
Should ESPs use relaxed body canocalization instead to avoid these (rare) validation issues? Thanks, Maarten Oelering Postmastery On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 at 20:29, Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 11, 2016, at 8:53 AM, Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > > > > > > On 12/10/2016 8:08 AM, Al Iverson wrote: > > >> Suggestion...modify the template to remove all the tabs or replace > > >> them with spaces, and try again. If it passes on both, then you've > > >> found that something in the delivery path is replacing tabs with > > >> spaces, invalidating the DKIM signature. > > > > > > > > > The original DKIM header field seems to show use of 'relaxed' which > ought to make sp/tab transformations transparent. > > > > > > "Convert all sequences of one or more WSP characters to a single SP > > > character." > > > > > > hmmm... > > > > c=relaxed is identical to c=relaxed/simple, so these messages sent with > c=relaxed are sensitive to whitespace changes in the body. > > > > (Not the first time I've seen this, and it's arguably a usability bug in > the DKIM spec.) > > > > Cheers, > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > > mailop mailing list > > mailop@mailop.org > > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop > >
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
