Doug Otis doug.mtv...@gmail.com writes:
On Apr 10, 2009, at 6:34 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
Barry Leiba wrote:
As chair, I note that any attempt to use the errata format of the
update document to *remove* text will be fraught. The text will
still exist (and will, in fact, be
I would suggest its not the lack of instructions, but whose. The
analogy is probably closer to when you (users) have multiple cars
(MUAs), each with the own set of near similar but different
instructions. Just consider the natural ergonomics of American vs
Japanese cars, the electronic
Siegel, Ellen wrote:
I agree with Doug's point here. The problem is that the more I think
about it, the more I think it's a mistake for us to put MUA advice
into the standards-track documents, and I'm inclined, rather, to want
to remove what's there rather than to change it.
+1
+1
+1
J.D. Falk wrote:
Siegel, Ellen wrote:
I agree with Doug's point here. The problem is that the more I think
about it, the more I think it's a mistake for us to put MUA advice
into the standards-track documents, and I'm inclined, rather, to want
to remove what's there rather than to change it.
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, J.D. Falk wrote:
I agree with Doug's point here. The problem is that the more I think
about it, the more I think it's a mistake for us to put MUA advice
into the standards-track documents, and I'm inclined, rather, to want
to remove what's there rather than to change it.
J.D. Falk wrote:
I don't completely agree with John, though -- I think this group /could/
come up with a fairly sane set of recommendations for MUA developers who
want to display information based on DKIM results, so long as we're careful
to confine it to what the results mean to end
I agree with Doug's point here. The problem is that the more I think
about it, the more I think it's a mistake for us to put MUA advice
into the standards-track documents, and I'm inclined, rather, to want
to remove what's there rather than to change it.
+1
+1
DKIM and ADSP are of benefit to edge email processing to assist in limiting
hopefully to legitimate messages to the message stores and client processing
systems. If a MUA was designed to highlight any processing of the legitimacy of
the email stream I would hope that the MUA would be checking
Original Text:
The tendency is to have the MUA highlight the address associated
with this signing identity in some way, in an attempt to show the user
the address from which the mail was sent.
Corrected Text:
The tendency is to have the MUA highlight the SDID, in an attempt
to show
Original Text:
The tendency is to have the MUA highlight the address associated
with this signing identity in some way, in an attempt to show the user
the address from which the mail was sent.
Corrected Text:
The tendency is to have the MUA highlight the SDID, in an attempt
to show the
I agree with Doug's point here. The problem is that the more I think
about it, the more I think it's a mistake for us to put MUA advice
into the standards-track documents, and I'm inclined, rather, to want
to remove what's there rather than to change it.
I couldn't agree more.
Honestly, it's
On Apr 7, 2009, at 2:57 PM, John Levine wrote:
I agree with Doug's point here. The problem is that the more I think
about it, the more I think it's a mistake for us to put MUA advice
into the standards-track documents, and I'm inclined, rather, to want
to remove what's there rather than to
12 matches
Mail list logo
