On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 04:09:34PM -0400, MH Michael Hammer (5304) allegedly wrote:
> Having said that, if an MUA is going to present an indication of > "DKIM PASS" to the enduser, then a reasonable person would expect > some relationship between what is "passed" and what is presented to > the enduser. That makes sense. And at least one MUA already renders DKIM verified mail differently. I would think such an MUA could take the additional step of rendering verified payload differently too. I know we're not in the MUA business, but if DKIM makes no difference to what an end-user finally sees, then it serves a very limited purpose indeed. > I understand the issues raised by Murray about the slippery > slope. On the other hand, I would rather see an MUA present nothing > about DKIM than give a false impression to endusers. I can understand the engineering nervousness over crossing layers, but that seems to me to be conflating the SMTP aspects of an MTA with the DKIM aspects of an MTA/verifier. It strikes me that a DKIM verifier is already well into the business of 2822 semantics as it knows about headers, header labels, continuation syntax, header/body boundaries and so on. In that light, taking an additional step wrt duplicate headers (or malformed 2822 in general) is still in the same layer as the verifier. Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
