> Jon, > > Sorry to be finicky, but I don't recall any statement in the DKIM > specification that matches or approximate that semantic for any aspect of > DKIM, never mind l=. > > As for l= semantics, this is all of the relevant text, none of which is > nearly as interesting as the interpretation you've invoked: > You are indeed being finicky, as well as correct. I wasn't talking about the approved RFC, but the discussion around it.
Nonetheless, I think the essence of that discussion and my comments are embodied in: >> 8.2 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6376.html#section-8.2>. Misuse of >> Body Length Limits ("l=" Tag) >> >> Use of the "l=" tag might allow display of fraudulent content without >> appropriate warning to end users. The "l=" tag is intended for >> increasing signature robustness when sending to mailing lists that >> both modify their content and do not sign their modified messages. And look at it -- l= is intended to increase robustness and strictness of interpreting the message. Jon
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
