On 10/13/2010 8:56 PM, Mark Delany wrote:
If DKIM has any value it's that it ultimately affects the user mail
experience for the better. Consequently, to remain silent on matters
that we know will adversely affect that experience seems
contradictory. Similarly to not offer guidance to implementors on the
sorts of things they can do to maximize the value of DKIM seems
similarly to miss the point.
First, let's be clear that no one think MUA issues are minor or irrelevant.
The question is how DKIM relates to them and what should be said about the
in the DKIM Signing specification.
Everything affects the user experience. IP interpacket arrival times. TCP
algorithms responding to congestion. SMTP transaction design. Every f'ing
But this does not mean that each of them must make comments about MUA issues.
DKIM resolved a massively important problem by defining a validated
name-affixing mechanism. But neither Domainkeys nor DKIM specifications
demonstrate any of the human factors or usability specialties needed to make
serious comments -- nevermind normative directives -- about MUA design. Nor
they need to.
What you are calling for would be good to have. It should be done. Just not
the signing spec.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to