From: "Earl Hood": > On October 27, 2005 at 00:47, "Hector Santos" wrote: > >> Of course, in all cases, the backend can serve ALL MUAs by writing directly >> to the body of the text. But IMO, that may be borderline ethical and a very >> bad idea overall to open Pandora's box to begin changing text presentation.
[Note: I meant to type "unethical"] > Not to mention potential legal problems. We tend to overlook copyright > law on these matters. I don't. But yes, it is a concern to see a growing ignorance over the years and the trend to 'reframe' presentation in audacious ways that have nothing to do with security or technical ideas. So how can the backend maximize the exposure of DKIM output information to the user? Or should it? Is the only news, good news or bad news? Why bother the user with bad news? Do we need a new and separate generic "Alert:" header that future MUAs can use? I mean, there is the mindset that if the email is processed and deemed safe enough to be store by the server for user pickup, then why should the user worry about anything else? If my ISP with his fancy DKIM service was confident enough to store the message and I received it, then it must be ok. Right? In other words, should DKIM pass the buck to user or how much of the "buck" should be passed to the user for deciding on what's good or bad? Consider this: In Canada, I recall earlier this year, there was bill pending that will require all ISPs to install AVS software as part of basic ISP operations. Otherwise it will be considered mal-practice to run a ISP service without AVS software installed. [Source: BNA Internet Law News] -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
