[ietf-dkim] l= statistics was 23 again (sorry John) was Output
MH Michael Hammer (5304)
MHammer at ag.com
Mon May 9 07:40:49 PDT 2011
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 10:00 AM
> To: Hector Santos
> Cc: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] l= statistics was 23 again (sorry John) was
> > We are spending an awful amount of time on this l= issue, whether it
> > be pulled, keep it and explaining how bad it is and discourage
> Agreed. I would like to deprecate it. But we don't have consensus
> for going that far, and I think we're too late in the process to get
> ourselves mired in that. What we're doing now is just short of
> deprecating it -- saying that, well, you really shouldn't oughta use
> it, without being normative.
> > The 6% using "l=" needlessly is a red flag.
> Yep. Happily, we (where "we", here, mostly means Murray, but some
> others as well) are collecting stats.
> It's possible, later, for someone to create an individual submission
> for "DKIM l= Considered Harmful", or some such, and perhaps if/when
> someone ever moves DKIM to full Standard we can actually deprecate l=.
> Barry, as participant
I'd like to request that we specifically test for consensus on
deprecating "l=" through the usual +1/-1 approach. No miring, just a
If we have consensus, great. If we don't have consensus then let's move
on. My concern is that if this is not addressed now it will not be
addressed in the future. My personal belief is that it should be
deprecated at this time.
More information about the ietf-dkim