http://www.usablesecurity.org/emperor/
Is the most classic paper on the complete uselessness of icons. You’ll note that browsers have changed to putting up intrusive pages with unobtrusive ways to continue, among other options, instead of showing broken lock icons. Elizabeth [email protected] > On Sep 28, 2017, at 11:22 PM, Rick van Rein <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > >> Also, among what you're talking about, I think the 7/8/base64 stuff >> would be covered by his MIME canonicalization. > > Since most MIME content is binary, it would be helpfulto canonicalise > individual body parts to their binary/pristine form. My current > thinking is that even message/* is binary, and I can think of reasons > why message/rfc822 should not be mangled in transit, but I'm not sure if > this is realistic. > > Where MIME content is text/*, I had to learn more about i18n. Unicode > was made to solve these riddles, by offering a place to all the > characters in the world [but not their renderings]. For characters with > more than one code, Unicode has the notion of canonical equivalence. > And where characters may be decomposed into sequences, it has a more > lenient equivalence notion of compatibility. The former should be no > issue for DKIM, the latter may be. Defining equivalence through > compatibility works for human texts but may be dangerous for accurate > content like program fragments and URIs, except that the common > limitation of these uses to ASCII solves these dangers. The stringprep > profiles, including SASLprep which looks very email-suitable, would be > able to handle all this. Software support already exists, of course. > > Finally, the nested nature of MIME content allows the recognition of > failures. All that needs to be done is add a DKIM-Signature to the body > parts, and have a mechanism for describing their compositions in a > change-detectable manner (and sign for that mechanism too). > >> Although I've seen web proxies or clients which resize photos, I don't >> think I've ever seen an MTA do it... which doesn't mean they couldn't, >> but I'm not sure it's a use case we have to try and handle. > > Anything of this kind would know that delivery is to a particular class > of MUA, so it would be near the recipient, where trust has a different > organisation. > > -Rick > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
