Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Tony Hansen wrote:
I'd be quite happy if it were dropped. I'm not demanding it, however, if
people can come up with reasonable language.
I'd still like to at least say something. I think the absence of MUA
recognition of this header is an issue. We can add as many warning
headers as we want to spoofed messages, but if the MUAs don't do
anything with that information then the utility of the headers' contents
is crippled.
How about something like:
Legacy MUAs
An important factor to the usefulness of this proposal is adoption
by Mail User Agents (MUAs) of some method by which the information
the headers contain is relayed to users to indicate the validity
of the message. The lag time between publication of this standard
and widespread adoption by MUAs will require careful consideration
by those making use of authentication methods which relay their
results using this header.
I think this is getting muddier rather than clearer. The 1st sentence is
fine. But what does the 2nd sentence really mean? It provides no real
guidance whatsoever other than saying "be careful".
Anyone else want to speak up on this issue? I think Murray and I are
hitting an impasse.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html