John R. Levine wrote:
I'm sorry, this gets the history wrong. We had a lot of arguments about
this when we were doing 4871, and I believe you will find that we added
l= over substantial opposition under the theory that it would compensate
for a significant fraction of MLM modifications. I think we now have
found that was overoptimistic. The right thing to do is to deprecate
l=, not make more mistakes.
This is, as usual, shamelessly wrong. We showed that over 90% of mlm signatures
could be verified. Real life data, from a large company's mail stream. You have
no data other than blatant assertions.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html