John R. Levine wrote: I'm sorry, this gets the history wrong. We had a lot of arguments about > this when we were doing 4871, and I believe you will find that we added > l= over substantial opposition under the theory that it would compensate > for a significant fraction of MLM modifications. I think we now have > found that was overoptimistic. The right thing to do is to deprecate > l=, not make more mistakes.
This is, as usual, shamelessly wrong. We showed that over 90% of mlm signatures could be verified. Real life data, from a large company's mail stream. You have no data other than blatant assertions. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
