At 1:36 PM -0700 6/9/06, Michael Thomas wrote:
I have the ability to sign with a relaxed body, but I don't have any
data as to whether it makes any difference -- simple _seems_ to be
working pretty well though. Maybe this would be a good thing to
just leave in and decide to remove at draft standa
How are multi-line header field values to be handled with z=? Do we
encode the fold (by adding =0D=0A for example) or do we unfold the
header field value first and then add that result to z=? Is preserving
the fold important at all?
--
Arvel
___
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
How are multi-line header field values to be handled with z=? Do we
encode the fold (by adding =0D=0A for example) or do we unfold the
header field value first and then add that result to z=? Is
preserving the fold important at all?
I treat a copy as just that -- a co
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
How are multi-line header field values to be handled with z=? Do we
encode the fold (by adding =0D=0A for example) or do we unfold the
header field value first and then add that result to z=? Is
preserving the fold important at all?
Another interesting question looki
> Are any MTAs currently *signing* using relaxed bodies? If yes, then
> the answer to the above question is moot and we should keep it.
Ours has the ability to do it but our default is simple for headers and
body. I also have no data as to whether this makes any difference (sorry).
--
Arvel
> Another interesting question looking at your headers is that you
> include the leading space of the header while I don't (due to that
> artifact of milters). I'd say that you're probably right given my
> previous message.
At the moment I think the way we're doing it is wrong actually because
At this point I tend to support Doug's position that we "allow" wildcard
entries on both sides of the "@" to delimit abuse.
hanks,
Bill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Douglas Otis
Sent: Fri 6/9/2006 4:27 PM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject:
