On 26/Apr/10 03:14, John Levine wrote:
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.
I note you refer to /current/ --rather than possible or commendable--
practice: l=0 certifies "From:" across multiple hops, while attempts
to also certify MIME prologues may result in broken signatures. IMHO,
it is broken signatures that are not _practically_ distinguishable
from no coverage.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html