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
Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Partial body coverage allows all sorts of sneaky tricks that make the
body presented to the user completely different from that the sender
signed. l=0 screams "phish me", attach a fake body to a genuine
signed set of headers.
We hashed all this out in excruciating detail on this list a year or
two ago, so please review the archives.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html