[ietf-dkim] ISSUE: tag l=2 and dealing with leading blank lines for SIMPLE c14n.
ietf-dkim at kitterman.com
Wed Jan 24 09:24:25 PST 2007
On Wednesday 24 January 2007 01:34, Jim Fenton wrote:
> If the signer wants to make sure that messages are not subject to
> "append attacks", they shouldn't use l=. Use the default.
IIRC, every time someone brings up l= problems, the response is don't use it.
Is there a problem it solves that we need it? If it's inherently risky and
should not be used, I'm wondering if it should even be in the RFC?
More information about the ietf-dkim