On 10 Mar 2019, at 15:13, Michael Peddemors wrote:
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk;
s=s2048; t=1552218309;
bh=g57fG3sVY8VJp5C0XX298lF8prrXAX2lkZMD2FVQd8o=;
h=Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:References:From:Subject;
b=QZ3oPoH9n7DnHGUK7Ebo6Iw51a7MLIXBgK4MjXJH7R5NIgDGbz/lCQQUXm4oubM7xF7SWFA8smaBqrgvqOoRtq4E+aH9T6vW9tft5biBXvyibfoa8F59ycbs0UkUVGhkSr1k5ArcCgJZwLNrDf8pjjoc6ALsXrzLVVYdiX6JghPTL1Re0/PJltp/koqBcRHvU4g8dKkiiLZwnoyS4kNgjRG6cwCBWHkAHFu/NPNY+7vC8ido9xcbhCDSPPsqOct6r5Rga0Ic2TcTU4pP7ZxIs0t3M3Mrr/USv5TbCPC4LltFrMB7AoRjpagphRAw7RwysbWJtsQjNMAhV1DpsmcMkw==
Kind of a pain for our auditing team and automated programs when it is
all in one line in the headers..
Is it really??? Why?
Those are entirely serious questions. It's trivial to parse as one line
for anything not involving human eyeballs. My header analysis tooling
always unwraps headers first before doing anything else, because
unwrapped is the canonical form. I can't imagine how it could be easier
to deal with a wrapped DKIM header, since the valid wrappings for any
logical header value are many and it's mostly not human-interpretable
anyway.
I am sure that there are lots of others on this list that can help you
with recommendations about header line wrapping in headers.. ;)
My recommendation is to not bother. Wrapping a DKIM header is a waste of
effort that introduces more potential for error than it could possibly
be worth.
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Available For Hire: https://linkedin.com/in/billcole
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
