>I think you nailed it: It's an unexamined assumption. But so, to me >at least, is the assertion that an author signature to a list is a >bad idea for senders and will only serve to confuse verifiers. I'd >like to see some data collected from such systems before I'm willing >to agree or disagree with either perspective. And until then, I >don't want to exclude anything.
I have to agree that more data could be helpful. You have mine, where the retained signature isn't. >A favourite example of mine: A DKIM signature with an "l=" ... >Another: A DKIM signature arrived and validated, but failed to cover >the Subject: header field. ... The DKIM spec certainly provides ample opportunity for signers to do silly things. If we're doing a BCP, it might be useful to suggest situations where a technically valid DKIM signature probably isn't useful, with these two examples, l= that doesn't cover the whole message and unsigned subject, being good examples. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
