Re: [Ietf-dkim] Headers that should not be automatically oversigned in a DKIM signature?

[Steffen Nurpmeso <[e-mail]>]

Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
 <20240205212412.Kq4PkTNC@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
 |Dave Crocker wrote in
 | <[e-mail]>:
 ||On 2/5/2024 9:43 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
 ||> It is debatable whether it is useful to display authentication 
 ||> information to the end user.  Personally, I like to see it. 
 ||
 ||At scale, there is no debate among UX professionals.  Its presence 
 ||varies between useless and confusing, for typical users.
 |
 |I *totally* disagree.
 |It is also a matter of education.
 |See in Germany (and Europe) we now have traffic lights on packaged
 |food, from red over yellow to green (in i think 6 steps), so
 |people will learn not to eat chips, sugarized cereals, and
 |chocolade.

P.S.:

For years i have, for the old BSD Mail fork i maintain, in
unreleased code (as the according MIME part is defunct and needs
a rewrite; ditto decryption, though that more obvious in the bad
case)

  +         n_str_add_cp(&ti, (mpp->m_content_info & CI_SIGNED_OK
  +            ? _("Signed data (good signature)")
  +            : (mpp->m_content_info & CI_SIGNED_BAD
  +               ? _("Signed data (signature unverified)")
  +               : _("Signed data"))));

Over eight years, to be exact.  Too much talking, too less work.
The mutt(1) client also does this, quite heavily even.

In fact, quite the opposite, it seems that the graphical people
try the trivialmost beautifulmost surface without a content, like
those mostly young women who can be seen on the sidewalk of
certain streets, really.  But i have no experience with that.

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)