>> Sender in its present incarnation is not particularly useful, >> period.
> I don't disagree. I just think Outlook's display makes it worse than > useless. The Outlook client is used in many places - it hooks up with the Exchange MTA but also with multiple other mail services like Yahoo Mail, Hotmail, Gmail... anything that supports mail. It has also been around for as long as I can remember, going back into the 1990's and has a very large install-base. It pre-dates any email authentication standard, and supports 2822 headers like Sender, Reply-To, etc. Saying Outlook's display is "worse than useless" fails to consider the context in which was developed (in the absence of advice it did what it could), the massive if-then-else pipeline that must take authentication into account, whether or not it can trust email headers, checking the recipient email address (Hotmail, Gmail, Yahoo all have slightly different implementations of Authentication-Results stamping), how to deploy many changes to multiple versions in production, how to augment the experience with Exchange, backwards compatibility, adding public documentation to MSDN, etc. Seeing as how there isn't any consensus on how MTAs should display things, Outlook's implementation of displaying multiple sender/from/reply-to fields is on-par with almost anyone else's. --Terry _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
