On Apr 25, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Tony Hansen wrote: > I found this part of Allessandro's message somewhat scary. I thought we > got past the point where l=0 was considered a viable option for anyone > to use?
Unless receivers treat any DKIM signature with an l= field as an unsigned message (or as a sign of email that should be rejected altogether) then l=0 is a viable option for senders to use. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
