>> l= over substantial opposition under the theory that it would compensate >> for a significant fraction of MLM modifications. I think we now have >> found that was overoptimistic. The right thing to do is to deprecate >> l=, not make more mistakes.
>This is, as usual, shamelessly wrong. We showed that over 90% of mlm >signatures could be verified. Real life data, from a large company's >mail stream. You have no data other than blatant assertions. Hmmn. Unless I have misread previous mail, this verification process involved a variety of heuristics unrelated to RFC 4871 such as replacing the headers with stuff derived from the z= tag and guessing that strings in the subject line might be tags added by the MLM. There's nothing wrong with doing that for your private use, but it's not DKIM. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
