[mail-vet-discuss] Re: Auth-Results issues? #8 secton 5.1

Murray S. Kucherawy msk at sendmail.com
Wed Apr 19 15:39:38 PDT 2006


Tony Hansen wrote:
> In section 5.1, it says:
> 
> 5.1.  Legacy MUAs
>  [...]
 >
> Wow. I know you're trying to deal with legacy MUAs. But this is placing
> a recommendation onto the MTA to do something wrong to work around a
> possible problem with any MUAs that *may* be connected to that MTA. Yuck.

This was a specific (and perhaps bad) example of what I think is actually a good 
idea, namely using existing means to communicate results to MUAs that haven't 
yet (and may never) add support for the A-R header.  How about including 
something more generic which pushes that idea but makes no specific suggestions?

I chose "Priority" in this case because there are examples of MUAs that can 
change the colour of a message in its mailbox summary page.  Certainly though I 
didn't want to subvert its other uses.

For example, there's some header "hack" you can use to make a a line appear in 
bright red with a flag next to it in Outlook, though I forget exactly what it 
is.  Someone implementing a verifier who knows he'll only be protecting Outlook 
boxes might want to exploit that to draw attention to likely forgeries, until 
Outlook actually supports A-R.


More information about the mail-vet-discuss mailing list