[ietf-dkim] on the suitability of the From header field
moore at cs.utk.edu
Sat Aug 13 17:23:30 PDT 2005
domainkeys-feedbackbase02 at yahoo.com wrote:
>>If end-users today are accustomed to thinking the message was sent by
>>RFC2822.From, they will need to be educated, and they may also need
>>better MUAs that make the distinction clear. But I don't think most
>>end-users are this naive or incapable of understanding the difference.
> Sure. But do end-users want to, and should they have to?
> Just because a rickety old standard technically makes it possible to
> distinguish between a confusion of originating, authoring, authorizing,
> resending and non-delivery report addresses, does not imply that it should be
> imposed on the billion or so end-users who have little choice but to use that
And just because you prefer a simple-minded view of communications
doesn't mean that such a view should be imposed on the billion or so
end-users who use email.
People using snail mail have little or no trouble understanding the
difference between the name and address on the outside of the paper
envelope, the name and addresss at the top of the letter, and the name
of the person who signs the letter. Each of these names/addresses
serves different purposes which are easily understood. Email is no
different, and no more difficult to understand.
Existing email user agents might blur the distinction between these, but
this is a user interface problem rather than a protocol problem. And
user interfaces _will_ have to adapt to take advantage of email
authentication, because email authentication creates new conditions that
users will need to be able to distinguish from existing conditions.
> It's also an interesting presumption that it is the end-user that needs
> educating about the, er, richness of email addressing.
Go back and reread what I wrote. I don't actually presume such.
> Perhaps it's more important for us implementors to be educated about how end-users really want to
> think about email addressing and adapt our thinking to their needs?
Fine. Just don't try to lump all end-users in the same bucket, and
don't insist that the mail protocol be crippled in order to accommodate
the most simple-minded of end-users. Email needs to be able to serve a
wide variety of users.
> Personally, I'm developing the suspicion that end-users have been using email
> long enough now that we should be noticing the demand for complex
> originating/sender addressing - especially in such a competitive and diverse
> marketplace. But at least from where I sit, the evidence is slim at best.
We're certainly seeing wide and quite legitimate uses of differences
between header From and return-path. We're also seeing increasing use of
More information about the ietf-dkim