On 12/8/20 10:41 AM, mailop@mailop.org wrote: > On 12/8/20 5:13 AM, Tim Bray via mailop wrote: > I *REALLY* dislike the idea. I think it is fundamentally flawed, in a mostly > non-technical way. ...
> This one of the reasons why I hate the idea of not showing the full email > address in email clients. I think your later statement suggests that you *almost* like the idea ;-) but would prefer the implementation to occur at the MUA level instead of manipulation by MTAs. Most organizations are now hosted by providers who don't give that level of control over the MUA behavior and/or their users may be using alternative MUAs, but many still have upstream MTAs that can do the transformation (even if the mailbox provider doesn't directly support that type of transformation). > *IF* I were to do something like this, I would purposely alter the name to be > something decidedly atypical in the headers and then rely on a company wide > address book to show the trusted name. E.g. "Darren Smith" becomes "EXTERNAL > - Do NOT Trust - Darren Smith". Then known correspondents, e.g. Tim Bray, > would have address book entries with display name set to "Tim Bray@". With > the "@" (or some other indicator) used to make things look nicer in the email > client. But even this has non-trivial drawbacks and can break a lot of > things. Anecdotally (I don't have hard numbers), I think that conditionally stripping/munging the Friendly From is an effective alternative to doing things like adding [EXTERNAL] tags to Subjects and bodies - which are common strategies employed by enterprises. Plus, simply stripping the Friendly From is so subtle that users hardly even notice - partially because it's mitigated by address book resolution. The only team in our organization who bothered to inquire was from our CRM team who was using Friendly From to soft match on contacts. Jesse _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
