Steve Atkins wrote:
On Mar 23, 2009, at 8:40 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
On Mar 23, 2009, at 8:20 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
It's the existence of it that's a bad idea. The sole redeeming
feature
is that it's optional, and so receivers can treat any signature
with l=
as invalid, with no risk of affecting mail sent by competent
senders.
Not according to the Crocker-Levine axis. All your decisions are
belong to them.
I don't get your point. Could you clarify?
Yes. With the Crocker-Levine axis, you get exactly one return value
from the signature evaluation -- t or nil. Anything finer grained
than that is illegal and verboten. If you want to make a nuanced
decision based on l= values, you are out of luck.
In this particular case that's not an issue. If there's an l= tag, it's
not a valid signature.
Incorrect. L= is perfectly valid RFC 4871; your low opinion of it is
irrelevant for the Crocker-Levine binary DKIM evaluation. If you don't
like that, I suggest you take that up with them or not support their
draft.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html