ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] l= statistics was 23 again (sorry John) was Output

2011-05-06 17:47:00
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 3:33 PM
To: Rolf E. Sonneveld
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] l= statistics was 23 again (sorry John) was Output

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.

Assuming you mean "percentage of signatures using 'l=' where the signed length 
and the message length are the same", OpenDKIM's data shows that as 9008 out of 
156524, or less than 6%.  Absent an error in the data, that suggests to me that 
when "l=" is used, it's being used because the mail is following a path through 
which it is likely to be extended.

So if we wish to discourage "l=" useful, some of these text needs to
be reworded, like this one in section 3.5 [...]

I don't think the proposed text adds or clarifies anything that isn't already 
there.  The semantics and use of "l=" are pretty well defined already.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>