On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 12:02:02 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Scott Kitterman <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > That's possibly true, but given the goal of the working group, it may turn > > out > > to be the best we can do. In my limited IETF experience, I've seen > > several > > variants of "we aren't U/I experts, so we should stay away from it". That > > may > > be true, but we may not get out of this one without having to give some > > strong > > guidance. > > > > For the large fraction of email users today that are doing it via webmail > > where the service provider controls the MUA experience directly, the > > timeline > > for improvement can be relatively short compared to traditional software > > deployment cycles. > > Do we have any reason to believe that such advice would be read by anyone > in a position to bring about its implementation? How much do MUAs apply, > as Ned cited, RFC2049? > > Whatever each of us thinks of our collective UI expertise is unimportant if > MUA developers will end up disregarding our advice and following their own > anyway. > > As I've said before, perhaps we should try to encourage major MUA > developers to participate. That would allay all such concerns. We might > even get Sender to matter again. Different MUA vendors are, of course, different. Many of the major DMARC participants are also MUA vendors, so I have hope. There are a number of useful features that seem to resist implementation. My MUA of choice has an amazingly useful "reply to list" feature that uses the relevant header fields to detect a list and reply to it. I can't imagine using an MUA that doesn't have it. It would probably be helpful to have an up to date survey of the MUAs to see which display Sender and which don't. I remember back when we were doing MARID, as an example, Outlook displayed it, but Outlook Express did not. Such a survey would give us some idea about how big the problem space is. Scott K