On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:52 PM, J. Gomez <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "MUAs SHOULD display to the end user, in UTF8 (and punycode), in a > > non ambiguous font, the domain used for the assertion of the DMARC > > policy, as well as the result of this assertion. A non ambiguous font > > is a font where the graphical representation of a chararcter is not > > identical to the graphical representation of another chararcter in > > the same font" > > > > If we know what a non ambiguous font is, then may be we could > > specifiy the font name. > > I very much would like that to be included in the DMARC spec. > I would very much include such advice in documents if I thought there was any hope they would be followed. MUA developers rarely if ever participate at the level of IETF work and often do things we don't expect, which has led us to our current pattern of punting on using any kind of normative language describing user interface stuff. That is, they are consumers of things like IMAP and SMTP, but they're completely free to decide how to render the user side of those things. Moreover, at the levels the IETF deals with, we as a community would be kidding ourselves to think we understand what user interface choices work or don't, so it would be silly for us to write things into RFCs that purport otherwise. Still, I've asked this before in other contexts, and I'll ask again: Does anyone have contacts in MUA space that we might reach out to, and what chances are there of them actually engaging? I may have one with Thunderbird that I'll try to reach out to in the coming week. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
