From: Jim Fenton
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 7:21 PM
At 04:33 PM 10/8/2004 -0400, James M Galvin wrote:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Jim Fenton wrote:
<...>
While I do agree we should consider what reports an actual originator or
recipient might receive based on the success or failure of the signature
mechanism to be developed, insofar as the signature is end-MTA to
end-MTA, the MUAs are largely irrelevant.
Irrelevant in the sense that we don't want to require an MUA
upgrade to participate, yes.
Even more important is that we can't effectively require an MUA upgrade if
their MTA _doesn't_ participate. Whatever we do to provide a means of
authentication, I would argue that it is unacceptable to render a message
unintelligible to an MUA behind a non-participating MTA. In fact, it
wouldn't hurt for something like this to be in the charter, if it isn't
already.
--
Seth Goodman