Jim Fenton wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
The SSP document applies the label "suspicious" to messages that well
might be legitimate and fails to apply it to ones that are not.
Actually, it's "Suspicious" (note the initial capital S) and if the
You are imparting semantic import to the case of the first letter?
issue is that the term is confusing, that is being tracked as issue #1530.
...
At a minimum, the SSP document needs to provide a very clear statement
of the types of problematic messages it will "catch" and the type that
it will not (ie, fail to catch.)
This is issue #1527.
My summary of each of the issues:
1527: Classic threats analysis, to specify the problem domain.
1528: Portion of a solutions analysis, distinguishing what traffic benefits
from SSP and what traffic that is of a related nature and is problematic, but
doesn't get it from SSP. (Hence the subject line text.)
1530: Calls for a terminology change.
If you think any of these is the same as the other, we can discuss the point
further.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html