On 07/11/2008 10:27, "Charles Lindsey"
<chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:00:58 -0000, Douglas Otis
<dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
wrote:
New email headers' misuse of the term "authentication" will prove
highly deceptive for recipients and damaging for domains!
[ . . . ]
All you are doing is making a, possibly sensible, case for better wording
of the various parameters of this header. If you were to concentrate on
that, we might begin to listen.
Headers aren't UI. The vast majority of users never see a raw header in
their MUA -- it's always translated in some way, prettified for their
convenience. We SMTP nerds, who actually read headers and understand what
they mean, are a vanishingly tiny minority. I won't even get into
internationalization issues (well, maybe in my signature below.)
If Doug wanted to make a positive contribution on this topic, he'd team up
with some user interface researchers and write a set of recommendations for
MUA developers. Continuing to rant about renaming a header that users never
see (and that is already in common use across the network) is, clearly, a
waste of everybody's time.
--
J.D. Falk
Return Path
返回途径
Terugkeer Weg
Chemin de Retour
Rückholweg
επιστροφής πορεία
Percorso di Ritorno
帰路
복귀 경로
Trajeto do Retorno
курс возврата
Trayectoria de Vuelta
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html