On 6/1/2009 10:49, Barry Leiba wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:22 PM, John R. Levine <[email protected]> wrote: >> I would really like to remove l= from DKIM to make it clear that it is not a >> good idea to even try to guess the history of a message based on signatures >> that don't verify and cover the whole messag. > > Yes, that seems to be the consensus, and I agree with that. > > Barry, as participant
It appears that you either missed or chose to ignore recent messages from individuals who do not agree that l= should be removed. I have been reading the arguments on both sides of this issue and lean towards leaving it in the spec. -- Paul Russell, Senior Systems Administrator OIT Messaging Services Team University of Notre Dame [email protected] _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
