> And just because you prefer a simple-minded view of communications > doesn't mean that such a view should be imposed on the billion or so > end-users who use email.
Well, that's not quite what I meant to say. I think the billion or so end-users expect, assume and want a simple-minded view. I'm not imposing, I'm reporting. > People using snail mail have little or no trouble understanding the > difference between the name and address on the outside of the paper > envelope, the name and address at the top of the letter, and the name > of the person who signs the letter. Each of these names/addresses > serves different purposes which are easily understood. Email is no > different, and no more difficult to understand. Ahh yes. The inevitable hoary strawman that is wheeled out during such discussions. That a physical communication medium such as snail mail has constraints that require addressing complexity, or make addressing complexity possible, in no way implies that it's desirable, fully understood or necessary in other mediums. Why not wheel out voice calls or SMS as a model? After all, they are far more popular than antiquated snail mail - or the pony express for that matter. As it happens, I also rather doubt that most people realize or exercise or care about the different addressing options possible in snail mail. For kicks, I just asked my wife why people put their address on the inside letter when it's already on the envelope. Her answer? Because you throw away the envelope, you need a *copy* of the address on something that is retained. Her second answer was that business formality demands that letters contain internal addresses. And when might the return address on the envelope differ from the inside sender address I further asked? Her answer took a while coming and followed a perplexing look, but she offered that you might do that to try and fool someone... A rather amusing answer in our context, I thought. To her, the envelope and letter addresses were merely repetition for convenience or formality. That they could be usefully different was *not* something she had ever thought about. Sure, it's an anecdote, but this is definitely a safe quiz for kids to try at home! Besides, when snail mail disappears in the next decade will people really want to wheel out an extinct physically constrained model that email should follow? > Existing email user agents might blur the distinction between these, but > this is a user interface problem rather than a protocol problem. And > user interfaces _will_ have to adapt to take advantage of email > authentication, because email authentication creates new conditions that > users will need to be able to distinguish from existing conditions. Sure. But that in no way implies that addressing has to get more complicated. Maybe it's an opportunity to make it simpler? Mark. _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list [email protected] http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
