Terry Zink writes: > There is a lot of overlap in some mail clients, but there is also > ambiguity about how to show certain things. To say "My users like > this, and don't like that"
"Like" and "dislike" are *not* what was reported here. Mail that we should presume is legitimate (based on the OP's testimony) was suspected of being fraudulent merely because of the "on behalf of" display. So "on behalf of" appears to be generating Type II errors (false positive for abuse), while DMARC is intended to prevent Type I errors (false negative for abuse). > is good anecdotal evidence but what proportion of mail flow is > that? How representative is it for everyone else? How much does the > existing user base understand or even care about how something like > this is displayed? Is it good enough? These are not questions that > are easily answered. Nor are they the questions I'm interested in here. I want to know if there are use cases where displaying "on behalf of" is *useful*, or if when it matters, it primarily induces user *mistakes*. Of course to Microsoft's Outlook developers, those are crucial questions. We aren't Outlook developers (not even you), so we don't actually care. I think we do care about user psychology in deciding whether a particular message is abusive, though. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
