Yes. No. No. Yes. Maybe. Let me elaborate.
On Aug 3, 2011, at 12:35 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The visual cue this convention provides is helpful and it's an extremely
widespread convention.
+1. The effect on users is completely different, even though the same
information is in there somewhere. And the least fortunate users are both
stuck with unhelpful user agents AND not in a position to do the kind of
processing that would add the tag automatically. So adding the tag is good
from a usability perspective.
On Aug 3, 2011, at 1:53 PM, ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
The IETF list already inserts the all the proper list- headers:
.......It's all I need for sorting .....
OTOH, I can also remove the [ietf] tag if the list starts putting it in there.
So count me as mildly disliking this proposal.
Yes, this is step back from standards to informal practice, so adding the tag
is bad from an IETF/formal perspective, though perhaps only mildly so.
On Aug 3, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Tony Hansen wrote:
-1 cause it breaks signatures
It's certainly bad if it breaks signatures. On the other hand, if we can
preserve the authentication results so that we have confidence in both the
sender and the list exploder -- including the different forms of the Subject:
field -- that would be a nice technical exercise/demonstration and a reference
DKIM-handling example for other list software.
So I think this largely depends on how hard someone is willing to work on it.
-- Nathaniel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf