On 26/Apr/10 03:14, John Levine wrote: > I'm willing to accept a signature with l= so long as it covers the entire > message. I agree that partial coverage is not practically distinguished from > no coverage.
I note you refer to /current/ --rather than possible or commendable-- practice: l=0 certifies "From:" across multiple hops, while attempts to also certify MIME prologues may result in broken signatures. IMHO, it is broken signatures that are not _practically_ distinguishable from no coverage. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
