>Unless receivers treat any DKIM signature with an l= field as an >unsigned message (or as a sign of email that should be rejected >altogether) then l=0 is a viable option for senders to use.
I'm willing to accept a signature with l= so long as it covers the entire message. I agree that partial coverage is not practically distinguished from no coverage. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
