On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:59 PM, Mark Delany wrote: > 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'm looking forward to a draft on MUA considerations for DKIM. With all these opinions on the matter being expressed so adamantly, somebody must have already started one...right? _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
