On October 17, 2005 at 16:22, Jim Fenton wrote: > >> 50% of the ones if counted based on actual use by people. Actually > > the situation is such that those for who its not visible header field, > > can very often change it to make it visible through some additional > > seetting and at the same time they are also the ones that are a lot > > less likely to be fooled by forgery in the first place... > > The people we're trying to help are the ones who won't can't do that > additional setting to make Sender visible. And I'm not satisfied with > helping 50% of the clients.
This seems to be a bad policy to follow. Just because some MUAs render fields a certain way should not be a basis for how a standard should be designed. --ewh _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
