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

Tony Hansen tony at att.com
Thu Apr 27 20:14:54 PDT 2006

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Tony Hansen wrote:
>> I'd be quite happy if it were dropped. I'm not demanding it, however, if
>> people can come up with reasonable language.
> I'd still like to at least say something.  I think the absence of MUA
> recognition of this header is an issue.  We can add as many warning
> headers as we want to spoofed messages, but if the MUAs don't do
> anything with that information then the utility of the headers' contents
> is crippled.
> How about something like:
> Legacy MUAs
>     An important factor to the usefulness of this proposal is adoption
>     by Mail User Agents (MUAs) of some method by which the information
>     the headers contain is relayed to users to indicate the validity
>     of the message.  The lag time between publication of this standard
>     and widespread adoption by MUAs will require careful consideration
>     by those making use of authentication methods which relay their
>     results using this header.

I think this is getting muddier rather than clearer. The 1st sentence is
fine. But what does the 2nd sentence really mean? It provides no real
guidance whatsoever other than saying "be careful".

Anyone else want to speak up on this issue? I think Murray and I are
hitting an impasse.

	Tony Hansen
	tony at att.com

More information about the mail-vet-discuss mailing list