On 10/13/2010 8:56 PM, Mark Delany wrote: > If DKIM has any value it's that it ultimately affects the user mail > experience for the better. Consequently, to remain silent on matters > that we know will adversely affect that experience seems > contradictory. Similarly to not offer guidance to implementors on the > sorts of things they can do to maximize the value of DKIM seems > similarly to miss the point.
Mark, First, let's be clear that no one think MUA issues are minor or irrelevant. The question is how DKIM relates to them and what should be said about the topic in the DKIM Signing specification. Everything affects the user experience. IP interpacket arrival times. TCP algorithms responding to congestion. SMTP transaction design. Every f'ing thing. But this does not mean that each of them must make comments about MUA issues. DKIM resolved a massively important problem by defining a validated name-affixing mechanism. But neither Domainkeys nor DKIM specifications demonstrate any of the human factors or usability specialties needed to make serious comments -- nevermind normative directives -- about MUA design. Nor did they need to. What you are calling for would be good to have. It should be done. Just not in the signing spec. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
