Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > Michael Adkins wrote: >> A question regarding the notes in 10 and 11: >> >> Would it make more sense to suggest that the mail system make the >> UAID clear to the reader if its the identity whose reputation was >> used to deliver the message, and make the SDID clear to the reader >> otherwise? > > > Simple question: why? > > Complex question: What is the empirical basis for believing that any > user interface design recommendations that we make will have any > utility to the end-user? Experience with usability design > demonstrates a key constant: it is almost impossible to ensure user > interface utility in the absence of empirical data.
Simple answer: If the purpose of the original text was to point out to users who the message is really from in cases of suspected forgery, and through whatever means the receiving system has decided that the real responsible identity is the UAID and not the SDID , it seems to me to fit better with the original intention of showing the user who the message is really 'from' to point out the UAID. Complex answer: I agree with the observation and don't know that there is any. Is there a purpose for changing these sections beyond consistency with the rest of the document? _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
