Bearing in mind RFC6376 section 8.2
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6376#section-8.2
I have my system set to warn me of messages which set a length
to the DKIM signed part of the message body with the l= tag.
I have recently seen messages on this list (from more than
one person) that have DKIM headers with l= values,
and no they had not DKIM signed (and oversigned) the Content-Type:
header to protext against
https://www.zone.eu/blog/bimi-and-dmarc-cant-save-you/
Have things changed so that it is now safe to use DKIM l=
- eg as a perfomance optimisation (saves reading the body twice) ?
Thanks,
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
[email protected]
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
