In article <d8bab034-7539-fbb4-faa0-daf6aa51e...@wisc.edu> you write: >Why should the rest of end-users suffer? (some might say) > >Granted, we are a university. Maybe these are just faculty being >hyper-sensitive to how >their messages are appearing to their peers/students. But isn't that enough >evidence that >end-users *are* relevant? With time, maybe we can change these end-user >expectations, and >From rewriting will be the new reality that people will accept.
I don't think the claim is that users don't see anything, it's that they're no good at using what they see to make security decisions, something that has more to do with mental models and metaphors between what's on the screen and reality. >I think that draft-kucherawy-dkim-transform-02 is getting at what I was >originally thinking. >In my opinion, MLMs will *always* need to munge, because they will never know >if an arbitrary >receiver will trust their non-munged mail. Giving the receivers a way to >un-munge (if they >can and/or want and/or trust) would be a productive path forward out of this >situation. We already have a couple of ways to do reversible message munging, starting with MIME message wrapping. In principle it works fine, in practice it's awful because MUAs don't show wrapped messages consistently and often in ways that are painful, e.g., you can see the original author address but there's no button you can push to respond to it. Unwrapping a MIME attachment is a lot easier than the proposed DKIM unmunging but I doubt either is going to show up in MTAs any time soon. Perhaps you could do it in the mail gateway. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
