>Similarly in case of bypassing DMARC by wrapping the message, or a >length limit on the DKIM signature, IWBNI the unauthenticated parts of >the message were given a "nice UX" treatment semantically equivalent >to displaying it in grey45 on grey50, adding a big warning in red >explaining that From: header can't be trusted and clicking on links is >not advised, and a button to make it readable (and make the annoying >warning go away).
People made this suggestion for l= DKIM signatures, too. It strikes me as hugely confusing, since it provides no useful answer to "should I believe this message or not?" Someone thinks it's bad, but it looks OK. Who do I believe? A note about why a message was put in the spam folder seems OK, since it is not demanding that the user make a security decision. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
