ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- l= and x=

2009-06-02 17:29:59
Why does the current specification allow the signer to specify an
arbitrary
value for l=, rather than requiring the value of l= to be the actual
length
of the message body at the time the message is signed?

How could a verifier tell any different, thus making non-compliance detectable?

The best we could do is say SHOULD there.  But maybe that's not a bad idea.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>