Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Given this, I'd say we should list "l=" as a MAY, and advise signers
that a verifier might not care that you said "l=", be that simply
because "l=" wasn't implemented at the verifier, or perhaps it was
implemented but the verifier had a strict policy on its use and your
message violated it. Thus, we've defined it, but we don't promise it
will be universally useful.
For l=, a MAY for signers produces a MUST for verifiers.
If a signer bases their signature on use of an l= value, then the signature
will
fail if the verifier does not implement it.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html