Dave CROCKER wrote:
Michael Adkins wrote:
A question regarding the notes in 10 and 11:
Would it make more sense to suggest that the mail system make the
UAID clear to the reader if its the identity whose reputation was
used to deliver the message, and make the SDID clear to the reader
otherwise?
Simple question: why?
Complex question: What is the empirical basis for believing that any
user interface design recommendations that we make will have any
utility to the end-user? Experience with usability design
demonstrates a key constant: it is almost impossible to ensure user
interface utility in the absence of empirical data.
Simple answer: If the purpose of the original text was to point out to
users who the message is really from in cases of suspected forgery, and
through whatever means the receiving system has decided that the real
responsible identity is the UAID and not the SDID , it seems to me to
fit better with the original intention of showing the user who the
message is really 'from' to point out the UAID.
Complex answer: I agree with the observation and don't know that there
is any. Is there a purpose for changing these sections beyond
consistency with the rest of the document?
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html