Steve Atkins wrote:
> 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.
Incorrect. L= is perfectly valid RFC 4871; your low opinion of it is
irrelevant for the Crocker-Levine binary DKIM evaluation. If you don't
like that, I suggest you take that up with them or not support their
draft.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
