Hi Murray,
At 15:39 19-04-2006, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
This was a specific (and perhaps bad) example of what I think is
actually a good idea, namely using existing means to communicate
results to MUAs that haven't yet (and may never) add support for the
A-R header. How about including something more generic which pushes
that idea but makes no specific suggestions?
It's what people might do in practice. However, such hacks should
not be encouraged in a RFC or else it becomes the norm.
implementing a verifier who knows he'll only be protecting Outlook
boxes might want to exploit that to draw attention to likely
forgeries, until Outlook actually supports A-R.
You could have:
5.1. Legacy MUAs
Implementors of this proposal should be aware that many MUAs are
unlikely to be retrofit to support the new header and its semantics.
As there is keen interest in conveying the results of sender authentication
tests to legacy MUAs, other interim means of doing so may be
necessary while
this proposal is adopted.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html