Michael Thomas wrote:
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
With the use of language like "suspicious", SSP is making value
judgement on messages that do not satisfy SSP's criteria, even
though
those message well might be entirely legitimate.
Weasel words instead of "suspicious" would be an intentional lie.
My suggestion is to remove "suspicious" and replace it with the actual
state of SSP itself. For example strict-violation or all-violation or
nxdomain-violation (or whatever). This removes the subject nature of
"suspicion" and its resulting idiosyncratic definition.
+1
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html