On 10/7/2021 6:57 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
But here: I think it is reasonable, perhaps advisable, to
informationally document From-rewriting as a mechanism that is in use,
and to include in that documentation a clear exposition of the
problems that it causes. Why not get those horrible UX issues down on
paper so that when someone decides to deploy it they are better
informed? Perhaps we can lead people to take steps to reduce the UX
challenges (for example, rewriting the way the IETF is doing it at
least addresses the issue of knowing who sent the message, and how to
reply to the actual sender, as compared to a rewrite directly to the
mailing list address).
Sorry, but I've lost track of which document would informationally
document this issue.
The re-writing hack is an operational one that might or might not prove
the be transient. Having a spec note the effect of what it does, in
terms of rendering mailing use problematic, is reasonable.
Having a spec go into details about the hack of the moment isn't. On
the other hand, it's reasonable to put such discussion into a companion
'usage' doc, IMO.
d/
ps. As soon as there is text talking about From rewriting, there should
be associated text discussing related mechansisms. The Author spec has
already been mentioned, but the discussion should try to be exhaustive.
ARC and whatever else makes sense, too.
--
Dave Crocker
[email protected]
408.329.0791
Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
Information & Planning Coordinator
American Red Cross
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
