On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 04:09:34PM -0400, MH Michael Hammer (5304) allegedly
wrote:
Having said that, if an MUA is going to present an indication of
"DKIM PASS" to the enduser, then a reasonable person would expect
some relationship between what is "passed" and what is presented to
the enduser.
That makes sense. And at least one MUA already renders DKIM verified
mail differently. I would think such an MUA could take the additional
step of rendering verified payload differently too.
I know we're not in the MUA business, but if DKIM makes no difference
to what an end-user finally sees, then it serves a very limited
purpose indeed.
I understand the issues raised by Murray about the slippery
slope. On the other hand, I would rather see an MUA present nothing
about DKIM than give a false impression to endusers.
I can understand the engineering nervousness over crossing layers, but
that seems to me to be conflating the SMTP aspects of an MTA with the
DKIM aspects of an MTA/verifier.
It strikes me that a DKIM verifier is already well into the business
of 2822 semantics as it knows about headers, header labels,
continuation syntax, header/body boundaries and so on.
In that light, taking an additional step wrt duplicate headers (or
malformed 2822 in general) is still in the same layer as the verifier.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html