On 3/23/09 1:49 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> The reason that l= was a bad idea is that it changes the answer to the 
> question of whether a message is signed from "yes" to "sort of".  The 
> less sort-of, the better.

I'm sorry- in the plethora of email that is this list, I missed your 
position on l=.  I take it from your note that it should be required or 
not at all?

Eliot
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

Reply via email to