Take your pick:
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/exception
I don't have a problem with "exception" in this case. I believe that
it describes what is happening accurately.
Regards,
Damon Sauer
On Dec 17, 2007 1:00 PM, Michael Thomas <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com> wrote:
Jim Fenton wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
Jon Callas 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.
...
How about something like "SSP Exception"? Metaphorically, it works
well with the programming use of the word exception.
Folks,
In the hope of trying to close some of the "easy" Issues, would folks
comment on this specific proposal, or otherwise post comments seeking
closure of the Issue?
My suggestion is to just to take the exception/violation reason. For
example, "all-exception", "strict-exception", "nxdomain-exception"
and the like. A single word even if it's value-neutral gives the wrong
impression that all exceptions/violations/suspicion should be given
the same weight. Just saying what it is that went wrong doesn't
do that.
+0.5
Agree that a name change is in order, and that we need more than a
binary 1/0 result.
But "exception" makes it sound like a kernel panic or something. Hector
had some alternative interpretations of "exception" too. My
suggestion: "non-compliant"/"compliant".
My original suggestion was "violation" which still works with nxdomain
and other states. I could live with exception though.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html