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.
Hmmn. Unless I have misread previous mail, this verification process
involved a variety of heuristics unrelated to RFC 4871 such as
replacing the headers with stuff derived from the z= tag and guessing
that strings in the subject line might be tags added by the MLM.
There's nothing wrong with doing that for your private use, but it's
not DKIM.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html