why?
Paul Russell wrote: > 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. > -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
