Barry Leiba wrote:
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.
I agree.
Ok, no sweat.
(Note, there was more than one proposed text and not the only listed
in the last post.)
However, for the record, I would like to provide my opinion:
We are spending an awful amount of time on this l= issue, whether it
should be pulled, keep it and explaining how bad it is and discourage
usage.
The 6% using "l=" needlessly is a red flag.
I would like to know why 6% of the mail use it but don't need it. That
will suggest 6% of the potential DKIM Market are subject to "l="
exploit or %6 are just not reading it correctly. Should we wait until
10%, 20%, etc?
Volume analysis needs to be broken down to domain analysis to see how
DKIM is being used.
Consider that we don't know the domain break down of the 156524
messages. So of the 156524, there are X unique domains, what percent
of those use "l=" needlessly? Was it higher or lower than 6%? or was
it just 1 or 2 domains?
--
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