On Apr 25, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:
I found this part of Allessandro's message somewhat scary. I thought we
got past the point where l=0 was considered a viable option for anyone
to use?
Unless receivers treat any DKIM signature with an l= field as an
unsigned message (or as a sign of email that should be rejected
altogether) then l=0 is a viable option for senders to use.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html