John Levine wrote:
If the verifier doesn't like the l= tag, they should just reject the
signature, rather than bother doing the math to verify it.
Don't do that. In the presumably common case where the message hasn't
had anything added to it in transit, you ignore l= and the signature
verifies just fine. I suppose as a microoptimization you could
prescan the body and fail if the length is wrong.
Agreed. That would be the effect of "ignoring" the l- tag -- in the
sense of actually removing it from the signature -- which is why that's
not a good thing to do.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html