Murray S. Kucherawy writes: > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Anne Bennett <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Right, but if that tag were explicitly deemed to be excluded > > from the signature, it could be handled differently. Hmm, but > > if this resulted in (for example) the tag not being displayed, > > then we would have gained nothing in the case of mailing lists. > > > > Handled by whom? If we're talking about telling MUAs "Don't render the > unsigned part of the content the same way as the signed content", then a > bunch of additional complexities begin to appear: How about substituting s/U/T/? Unpacking that rather obscure expression, if you have a well-defined protocol (as opposed to, say, the quoting convention for replies :-), the M*T*A (or spam-fighting milter) could remove the parts signed only by 3rd parties, and add a message/rfc822 subpart of the whole original message as an attachment which the reader *could* look at, if they want to, in most M*U*As. Really paranoid sites like A** and Y****! could just remove on receipt. > - We're wandering into conversations about how MUAs should interact > with users, which this community typically avoids like a terrible > allergy Note that although this does rely on the MUA to havec certain capabilities, most MUAs *do* have them, and I hope that users will accept the inconvenience because they get the original message without the third-party decorations. I suspect this line of thought is beneficial only to MLs, unfortunately. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
