[ietf-dkim] l= summary, as I see it
barryleiba at computer.org
Thu May 28 09:28:26 PDT 2009
I'm going to make one attempt here, and then give this topic up:
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Doug Otis <doug.mtview at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sounds like an argument /against/ allowing part of a message to be
>> signed, and part not.
> By having a body length parameter as part of the DKIM protocol,
> whenever offered by the signer, users can employ MUAs that properly
> indicate which portions of a message originated by the signer, and
> which did not.
The point, Doug, is that WITHOUT l=, the portions of the message
originated by the signer are [all], and the portions that were not are
[none]. So your problem is covered.
The issue is whether it's useful to be able to HAVE a non-null portion
that "was not", which is what l= provides. What everyone here is
saying is that it is NOT useful to have that, so we don't need l=.
If you're saying that you WANT to be able to have an unsigned portion
of the message, then you're the only one. Everyone else thinks that
if such a thing exists, it should be considered evil and thrown away.
We put l= in there with the idea that it would be useful. We
experimented with it. We have the results of the experiment, and it
looks like we have consensus on this point.
Barry, as participant (for now)
More information about the ietf-dkim