Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
J D Falk wrote:
Dave Crocker asked:
Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com wrote:
MUA how to reliably display something useful about the above
information
What is the basis for having the MUA as a goal in our work here?
Even if it isn't, we'll need a clearer answer for all the people who
expect it to be.
"DKIM and SSP are for filtering engines, not the recipient's MUA."
The fallacy here is that an MUA and a filtering engine cannot
coexist. Which of course they do all the time.
There is no statement that they cannot co-exist, so it's probably better
not to assert that such a statement is false.
The statement is that SSP is intended for processing by a filtering
engine and that it has no direct MUA-related intent.
I'm pretty sure this a game of gotcha, but opposing "filtering
engine" and "MUA" in the above construct implies that they are
two disjoint categories. They aren't, and thus your construction
falls into the false dilemma fallacy, I'm pretty sure. Also: MUA's and
their considerations are not outside of our charter, and it's
perfectly reasonable to bring up issues that may help MUA developers
use DKIM and SSP. It's also yet another false dilemma to say that
MUA's are the same thing as their UI's or even worse their human
interface considerations (which a MUA may or may not even possess).
It would be helpful to not keep making these errors of composition.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html