On Wednesday 24 January 2007 12:57, John Levine wrote:
If the signer wants to make sure that messages are not subject to
"append attacks", they shouldn't use l=. Use the default.
IIRC, every time someone brings up l= problems, the response is don't use
it. Is there a problem it solves that we need it? If it's inherently
risky and should not be used, I'm wondering if it should even be in the
RFC?
Personally, I have never thought that l= would be useful, but I was
willing to leave it in the draft for the benefit of people who want to
try it out. This document is in last call, it is nuts to propose
opening it up to add yet more untried features of at most debatable
utility.
-99 to any proposed new features
Agreed. My question was mostly academic (should have said that I guess), but
if we are going to get into a long discussion about fixing problems with l=,
then the alternative of removing it seems worth considering (I'm not
proposing we have the long arguement, but if we do...).
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html