On May 9, 2011, at 5:14 PM, John Levine wrote: > I think it was a mistake to include l= in the first place, but I > find Murray's arguments against taking it out now persuasive.
+1 > I would also really like to have a better idea of how people are > using it, notably, for all those messages where l= doesn't cover > the whole body, what's in the naked part. l=0 is the other variant I've noticed, covering just the headers. It's something I can see some value in doing, if your main concerns are something other than phishing. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
