On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 9:51 PM Jim Fenton <[email protected]> wrote:
> That was basically the argument against the l= parameter in DKIM > signatures. We did end up keeping l= because it only has effect if the > signer uses it and the verifier accepts its use, although it was widely > expected that it would not be used much. I suspect that's what happened. > That sounds right to me. OpenDKIM, for example, makes it optional to consider signatures using "l=" invalid, or that have more than N bytes added using "l=", etc. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
