Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> And, anticipating the next question(s):
>
> Signatures with other "l=" values that were in turn larger than the message
> received: 10389
> Subset of those that still passed: 9870 (95%)
> Subset of those that still passed and looked like list traffic: 5504 (53%)
>
> Based on that it looks like "l=" is pretty effective, but not
> very widely used.
I did a short testing on this (but turned if off for now) where for
one domain, I prepared the signing to:
- use l=
- excluded Subject in h=
and the list mail survived with the original signature and the new
resign signature.
What it basically told me that we (my implementation) might have to
add feature for a "Target" signing rule:
if target is for a list then use
- use l=
- excluded Subject in h=
otherwise
- don't use l=
- subject is in the h=
But right now, list mail resigning strips the original.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
