why?
Paul Russell wrote:
On 6/1/2009 10:49, Barry Leiba wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:22 PM, John R. Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I would really like to remove l= from DKIM to make it clear that it is not a
good idea to even try to guess the history of a message based on signatures
that don't verify and cover the whole messag.
Yes, that seems to be the consensus, and I agree with that.
Barry, as participant
It appears that you either missed or chose to ignore recent messages from
individuals who do not agree that l= should be removed. I have been reading
the arguments on both sides of this issue and lean towards leaving it in the
spec.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html