On 05/04/2011 11:53 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Considerations Section 8. To avoid this attack, signers should
be extremely wary of using this tag, and verifiers might wish
to ignore the tag.
To avoid this attack, signers need to be extremely wary of using this tag, and
verifiers might choose to ignore signatures containing it.
Verifiers must not ignore them, assessors on the other hand may.
But assessors cannot because the existence of l= is not part of
the DKIM output. This results in an inconsistency in the protocol.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html