On May 9, 2011, at 5:14 PM, John Levine wrote:
I think it was a mistake to include l= in the first place, but I
find Murray's arguments against taking it out now persuasive.
+1
I would also really like to have a better idea of how people are
using it, notably, for all those messages where l= doesn't cover
the whole body, what's in the naked part.
l=0 is the other variant I've noticed, covering just the headers. It's
something I can see some value in doing, if your main concerns
are something other than phishing.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html