It appears that Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> said: >I did try and use it. You have to be careful to put the subject tag on new >messages or write /Re:/ in the right place. You must not sign MIME-Version: >and other fields that the MLM writes anew (yes, also Content-Type:). Oh, and >never send multipart (HTML) messages. With such limitations, l= does >sometimes >deliver enough robustness for a signature to survive through a MLM. Unless >the >MLM transforms the whole stuff to base64, that is.
Or it changes the MIME boundary string, or it puts text at the front of the body, or it changes the subject or any of the other signed headers, or it does any of a hundred other things that lists do. There are certainly some cases where a signature with l= will still be valid after the message goes through a list, but it's unpredictable and fragile so no sensible person would count on it. Can we agree that l= was a mistake that should go away and worry about something else, please? R's, John _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
