> 1. This is just a variant of the basic hole created by use of l= > > 2. The premise that having the l= go to a multipart boundary somehow > increases security is simply wrong. More generally, the idea that one or > another tidbit might tighten things a bit, l= opens such a huge door, the > small > tidbits don't matter.
On further consideration, I'm with Dave. Suggest removing the current language about l= and MIME boundaries, and replace with a note that if you use l=, added content can change the appearance of a message in hard to anticipate ways. Regards, John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
