On Mar 2, 2011, at 3:19 AM, Michael Deutschmann wrote: > On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, MH Michael Hammer wrote: >> The display name is problematic as Mr. Crocker has pointed out. One >> solution to this which I have suggested in the past is to not display >> the display name in the MUA if the email fails to authenticate. > > That won't help.
I'm not sure who can say whether or not this will help until sufficient usability testings has been done. > To fix this in the MUA, I'd have it strip the Full Name from *all* > messages, then re-insert the Full Name as listed in the user's address > book if there is any match against the real address. That's another idea that could/should be tested. The point being made on this thread is one I share, i.e. the MUA has a role to play as an active client in email authentication scenarios. That's not yet a consensus, but the concept is gaining momentum. It comes down to usability testing, useful metrics, and peer-reviewed data analysis. Then we should really know what we should be doing with the MUA, if anything. All that said, I don't believe MUA behavior is in scope for this IETF WG. -- Brett _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
