Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Back to the topic of this thread: I don't think we can draw any
conclusions from these statistics in relation to the description of l=
in rfc4871bis. The current description in rfc4871bis works for me.
I would like to know the percentage of l=xxx where xxx equals actual
body count.
If its very high, that will tell me there are many references to "l="
with text that sounds like its expected to be added. I posted this here:
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2011q2/016138.html
So if we wish to discourage "l=" useful, some of these text needs to
be reworded, like this one in section 3.5
bh= The hash of the canonicalized body part of the message as
limited by the "l=" tag (base64; REQUIRED).
It sounds like its expected and the REQUIRED is too close to "l="
which can throw someone off. I suggested the change to be:
bh= The hash (base64; REQUIRED) of the canonicalized body part
of the message. It is limited to the entire body length
count or length explicitly set with the optional "l=" tag
count value. If the hash is to represent the entire body
with no expectation for additional unhashed text appended
to the body, the l= tag SHOULD NOT be used. (See Section 9.1).
My post list all the references to "l=" for reading and setting.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html