2. Unless folks strongly object, I propose *not* changing the Errata/Update
text
about MUA, since the goal of the Update is to focus on other issues. Rather,
I
suggest we defer this more substantive issue with the MUA-related text to the
RFC4871bis effort.
As chair, I note that any attempt to use the "errata" format of the
update document to *remove* text will be fraught. The text will still
exist (and will, in fact, be repeated in this document).
As a participant, my inclination would be to have the update replace
the whole Appendix D like this:
Original text:
[Appendix D, in its entirety.]
Corrected text:
When a DKIM signature is verified, the processing system sometimes
makes the result available to the recipient user's MUA. How to
present this information to the user in a way that helps them is a
matter of continuing human factors usability research. The tendency
is to have the MUA highlight the address associated with this signing
identity in some way, in an attempt to show the user the confirmed
address from which the mail was sent.
Specific advice on how to accomplish that is beyond the scope of
this document.
But I could also accept leaving Appendix D as it is for now, and
dealing with it in the 4871bis effort.
Barry Two-Hat
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html