I don't think we yet have consensus to take out l= but it is quite clear
that the problems it causes are far greater than whatever problems it
might solve.
As Hector notes, it is required by non-DKIM aware MLMs.
To aim one more kick at the greasy spot on the floor where the horse used
to be, MLMs break signatures in a hundred ways, l= lets you work around
one of those hundred ways at the cost of making your signature worthless.
Perhaps reasoning should go like this: Let's assume we can sign according to
the target, then what would we do with a non-aware MLM? If the answer is to
avoid signing in such cases, then omitting l= and letting the signature break
is just equivalent --except for aesthetic considerations...
Since a proper DKIM implementation ignores broken signatures, you sign
everything.
Can we stop arguing about this now? These points were all hashed to the
point of exhaustion a year ago.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet
for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html