-----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