Jon Callas wrote:
How about something like "SSP Exception"?
I'm fine with almst all proposals so far, including to keep
"suspicious" as is. Please no weasel words like "annotated"
or anything that's much longer than "strict fail".
If you think that "first author" could make it into the RFC
there will be what I'd call "false positives", and then it
could be good to use a more neutral term.
If "first author" is replaced by "PRA" (the [2]822 concept,
not necessarily this acronym) then "suspicious" is fine.
Isn't "strict fail" a harsher judgement than "suspicious" ?
I don't see why Dave doesn't like "suspicious", a suspect
can be innocent, a "strict fail" can't, or can it ?
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html