On 2006-04-27 20:14, Tony Hansen wrote:
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.
This is primarily a warning to implementers, right? So I think the
first sentence may be sufficient.
--
J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager
Yahoo! Communications Platform Team
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html