On Fri, 17 May 2024, Brandon Long wrote:
I guess the part that's new to me is the apparent widespread (enough)
use of the l= parameter. I don't recall ever noticing its use before,
though can't say it was ever top of mind when looking at various headers
of messages.
I have to admit I'm surprised too. I thought everyone knew it was bad.
In my file of DKIM signatures in newsletter/mailing list mail I've gotten
over the past 15 years, I have about 200,000 signatures of which 6500 have
l=something. I divided it in half, and since 2018 there are 98,000
signatures of which only 500 have l=something.
It's not very common and it's gotten less common, like one message in
2000, but it does exist.
The example in the post of someone using l=1 really sounds like a
workaround for
I looked, I see a bunch of l=1 in mailings from the libertarians at
reason.com which makes a perverse kind of sense.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
