On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld < r.e.sonnev...@sonnection.nl> wrote:
> Remembering to what great lengths the ietf-dkim group went to make sure > that every bit of a message was covered by the signature (and with the l= > discussions in mind) I would really be surprised if adding the @fs= for all > outbound mail would be an acceptable solution for the problem. > I agree in general, but I'm not sure that's a valid comparison. A bare "l=0" is a lot less restricted than one that also includes "@fs=" and, perhaps, something like a short expiration. It could well be that's a tolerable risk when compared with the cost of doing nothing here. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
