----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Kitterman" <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:55 AM Subject: Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc) <snip> > I think, despite all your assertion by distant authorities, it may be that > something involving U/I requirements (not design, I agree that's out of scope) > may be part of the least bad solution we have to the problems the WG is going I agree. I think that the IETF is competent to specify what a user should see, just not how to see it. Thus we could require that the user's attention is drawn to a difference between From: and Sender:, or that a field has been authenticated to some level or has failed authentication and so on. As to how, I was watching the Tour de France transit Yorkshire and was reminded that, to a Frenchman, a waved yellow flag means danger, whereas the locals probably saw it as a friendly greeting; that is the sort of UI, transferred, conceptually, to the screen of an MUA, that I do not think the IETF has expertise in. Tom Petch > to be chartered to solve. > > I'm not saying it is certain to be in the solution scope, but it shouldn't > require a recharter if it turns out to be the case. I don't like any of the > possible solutions so far (including adding U/I requirements). I'm not > prejudging anything, I just don't want to prematurely preclude options. > > So this is still a discussion about the charter and what should be in scope. > > Scott K >