> 2. Unless folks strongly object, I propose *not* changing the Errata/Update > text > about MUA, since the goal of the Update is to focus on other issues. Rather, > I > suggest we defer this more substantive issue with the MUA-related text to the > RFC4871bis effort.
As chair, I note that any attempt to use the "errata" format of the update document to *remove* text will be fraught. The text will still exist (and will, in fact, be repeated in this document). As a participant, my inclination would be to have the update replace the whole Appendix D like this: Original text: [Appendix D, in its entirety.] Corrected text: When a DKIM signature is verified, the processing system sometimes makes the result available to the recipient user's MUA. How to present this information to the user in a way that helps them is a matter of continuing human factors usability research. The tendency is to have the MUA highlight the address associated with this signing identity in some way, in an attempt to show the user the confirmed address from which the mail was sent. Specific advice on how to accomplish that is beyond the scope of this document. But I could also accept leaving Appendix D as it is for now, and dealing with it in the 4871bis effort. Barry Two-Hat _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
