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.
I'm willing to accept a signature with l= so long as it covers the
entire message. I agree that partial coverage is not practically
distinguished from no coverage.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html