--On October 16, 2007 10:57:04 AM -0700 Michael Thomas
<mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com> wrote:
Thus, I do not believe that A-R is really for use in MUAs. It is
to pass information downstream without SMTP extensions.
I don't see how these two things follow. Just because you don't
want to show the raw auth-res (which I agree), doesn't mean that
it's not for use in MUA's. Even if you believe it needs to be tied
somehow to reputation, that doesn't mean that it has to happen
before an MUA.
True, you could combine the A-R value with reputation in the MUA, but
that implies that you're going to have some at least moderately
sophisticated code in the MUA --- sophisticated enough that it can
figure out which A-R fields are appropriate. And I believe (i.e., it
is my opinion) that in most cases combining reputation results will
come before the MUA.
Perhaps I should say "I do not believe that A-R is really for use in
basic filtering rules in MUAs, sieve scripts without special
primitives included to combine A-R with reputation information,
simple procmail scripts, or other such situations that do not involve
writing some reasonably specific code to incorporate reputation
information and which can therefore be sophisticated enough to
determine whether a particular A-R field is associated with a
relevant ADMD, and where by 'reputation' I mean reputation in the
broad sense, not implying use of any particular technology, and
including such related technologies as local white lists,
accreditation, etc." But that seemed a trifle verbose, and I somehow
thought the meaning of my statement was clear enough. I guess not.
eric
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html