> On 4/12/2011 6:02 PM, John R. Levine wrote: >> 3.4.5, first INFORMATIVE IMPLEMENTATION NOTE, last sentence: delete "or >> remove text that appears after the specified content length" since >> verifiers do not produce an edited message. > ... >> 3.5, l= tag, INFORMATIVE IMPLEMENTATION WARNING, remove "or remove text >> that appears after the specified content length" since verifiers don't >> produce an edited message. > ... >> 6.1.3, next to last paragraph, remove "by truncating the message at the >> indicated body length" since verifiers do not create an edited message. > > > Replacing "remove" and "truncating" with "ignore" and "ignoring" would > accomplish the same correction while preserving the reminder about the effect > of l=?
Look at the sections in context, and I think you'll agree that those bits should just go. There's no question that the verifier ignores text beyond the l= limit, and in both places the text says so. But it also says that the verifier can munge the message to delete the text it didn't verify, which is wrong. Regards, John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
