On Mar 23, 2009, at 8:40 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > Steve Atkins wrote: >> On Mar 23, 2009, at 8:20 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: >>> Steve Atkins wrote: >>>> It's the existence of it that's a bad idea. The sole redeeming >>>> feature >>>> is that it's optional, and so receivers can treat any signature >>>> with l= >>>> as invalid, with no risk of affecting mail sent by competent >>>> senders. >>> Not according to the Crocker-Levine axis. All your decisions are >>> belong to them. >> I don't get your point. Could you clarify? > > Yes. With the Crocker-Levine axis, you get exactly one return value > from the signature evaluation -- t or nil. Anything finer grained > than that is illegal and verboten. If you want to make a nuanced > decision based on l= values, you are out of luck.
In this particular case that's not an issue. If there's an l= tag, it's not a valid signature. There's no point in trying to stuff everyones favorite hobbyhorse into a DKIM signature. It's just asking for interoperability problems. There's no real downside to simply putting your favorite metadata in it's own header, and having DKIM sign that. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
