On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 1:39 PM Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> If a graphical user interface gives you a green "ok" button to
> click, or "red" otherwise, that is even better as in browser URL
> lines. Then pop up a tree-view of message modifications and
> alertize where it broke, checkbox for
On 2/5/2024 5:50 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
we'd see reductions in user understanding, awareness and resistance
abuse.
sigh. /increases /in user understanding, awareness and resistance abuse.
reductions in user clicking errors, or somesuch
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
On 2/5/2024 4:57 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Interesting. Is that online anywhere?
You mean, as in a recording? This was the early 1970s... So, no.
This seems to be related to the topic:
https://scholar.archive.org/work/k2udwjcwqndofj6mw3fnn5jiky
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg
On 2/5/2024 2:08 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
On 5 Feb 2024, at 14:02, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 2/5/2024 1:56 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
And you will also provide citations to refereed research about what you just
asserted as well, yes?
Ahh, you want me to prove the negative. That's not exactly how these
Jim Fenton wrote in
<3e7a38ef-4026-4943-8bc3-22516e3f1...@bluepopcorn.net>:
|On 5 Feb 2024, at 14:02, Dave Crocker wrote:
|> On 2/5/2024 1:56 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
|>> And you will also provide citations to refereed research about what \
|>> you just asserted as well, yes?
|>
|> Ahh, you
On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 8:50 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
> OpenDKIM will not sign a message that fails basic RFC5322 header checks
> (e.g., "From" or "Date" is missing), but will place an
> Authentication-Results field indicating the message is malformed. At some
> point, though, someone talked me
On 5 Feb 2024, at 14:02, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 1:56 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
>> And you will also provide citations to refereed research about what you just
>> asserted as well, yes?
>
>
> Ahh, you want me to prove the negative. That's not exactly how these things
> go.
You said that
On 2/5/2024 1:56 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
nd you will also provide citations to refereed research about what you just
asserted as well, yes?
Ahh, you want me to prove the negative. That's not exactly how these
things go.
When someone says something works, the burden of documenting it is on
On 5 Feb 2024, at 13:46, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 1:24 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
>> I*totally* disagree.
>> It is also a matter of education.
>
> Yeah. No. The standard example is the failure of the URL lock symbol.
>
> But given your certitude, please provide refereed research
On 2/5/2024 1:24 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
I*totally* disagree.
It is also a matter of education.
Yeah. No. The standard example is the failure of the URL lock symbol.
But given your certitude, please provide refereed research about
persistent behavioral change from email header
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20240205212412.Kq4PkTNC@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|Dave Crocker wrote in
| :
||On 2/5/2024 9:43 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
||> It is debatable whether it is useful to display authentication
||> information to the end user. Personally, I like to see it.
||
||At
Dave Crocker wrote in
:
|On 2/5/2024 9:43 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
|> It is debatable whether it is useful to display authentication
|> information to the end user. Personally, I like to see it.
|
|At scale, there is no debate among UX professionals. Its presence
|varies between
On 2/5/2024 9:43 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
It is debatable whether it is useful to display authentication
information to the end user. Personally, I like to see it.
At scale, there is no debate among UX professionals. Its presence
varies between useless and confusing, for typical users.
On 05/02/2024 17:02, Hector Santos wrote:
On Feb 3, 2024, at 8:23 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
RFC 5322 specifies lists for From:, To:, Cc:, Bcc:, Reply-To:,
Resent-From:, Resent-To:, Resent-Cc: and Resent-Bcc:.
My comment was regarding the MUA and the order data is read. I wonder
which
On 2/5/2024 11:50 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
(*) Lon ago, Knuth visited UCLA when I was there, and 'structured
programming' was a hot topic. He did a presentation to test a
perspective that he later wrote up. He observed that fully
structured programs, without gotos, could sometimes make code
On 2/3/2024 1:13 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I generally agree with the idea that there's a layering problem here,
i.e., that a DKIM filter should be able to safely presume that its
input will comply with RFC5322 and not alter the message at all other
than adding the signature. But on
> On Feb 3, 2024, at 8:23 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>
> On Fri 02/Feb/2024 14:34:22 +0100 Hector Santos wrote:
>> Of course, the MUA is another issue. What read order should be expected for
>> Oversign headers? Each MUA can be different although I would think streamed
>> in data are
17 matches
Mail list logo
