On 5/21/09 6:08 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I believe this was explicitly stated elsewhere, like on this list.
But that's not in the spec.
That's because the topic of what a verifier does with a message was
probably viewed as out of scope. But that doesn't imply, as you agreed,
that the application of certain rules based on garbage at the end should
not occur.
If such behaviors are necessary to make l= meaningful and useful --
and your line of frankly reasonable thinking does seem to imply
this, though I doubt it was your intention -- then the specification
for this bit of mechanism is seriously deficient.
Perhaps, but why do you think so?
You've been relying on interpretations that aren't in the
specification. If you restrict discussion to only using semantics
from the specification (with the Update) then I'm not understanding
what value proposition applies.
I think you are confusing uses for interpretations. Of course
information beyond the l= value should be treated with some suspicion.
Otherwise all that stuff that Steve mentioned can happen in some cases.
And by the way, my original question was about who is using the
feature and finding it valuable. Not about theoretical scenarios, but
experience based on two years of possible use.
And see my other message. I also question the value of l=. All I was
trying to say here was that the risks are well documented and easily
mitigated.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html