Stan Kalisch asks: And you propose the average user can understand, much less
take the time to understand, the substance?
Yes. I believe users are worried about spam, and want to make intelligent
decisions about whether or not email can be trusted. Unfortunately, our
present software denies them access to the available information needed to make
intelligent decisions.
Dave Crocker observes: There is no basis for believing that requests
about MUA display will achieve meaningful support on the receive side,
nevermind whether they would be at all useful.
I was not talking about the sender. I was talking entirely about the
receiving organization: its spam filter communicating to its MUA to
communicate information to the end user based on its local policy.
Dave Crocker also observes about end-user signaling failures: It's not
that it 'seems to be'. It isn't nearly that soft. It is that there have been
multiple efforts over the years and none has demonstrated efficacy.
Then lets restate that assertion in all its ugly elitism, and put it into
an RFC:
Incontrovertible research shows that humans will always act on malicious email,
and cannot be taught to do otherwise. Organizations should deploy email if
and only if they have automated tools which provide perfect protection from
unwanted email. End user training is useless.
I have a higher opinion about my users than that.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
