Sorry for joining the debate a bit late. My $.02 are below
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Jim Fenton wrote:
My suggestion: "non-compliant"/"compliant".
If "non-compliant" is actually a "Resent-* as
specified in 2822upd with a twist" (signature
didn't survive it), then that's rather strong.
Why not FAIL ? FAIL is short, neutral, and
some folks are used to the idea that FAIL is
a defined term.
Frank
I think FAIL actually has a stronger connotation than non-compliant. To me
non-compliant just says it didn't comply with the published policy. It is a
factual statement of the outcome of comparing this policy to the piece of data
you have in front of you. FAIL doesn't feel either as neutral or as factually
descriptive as that (key word there being feel, other people may have an
entirely different feeling for that term).
If the concern is that people won't understand that Suspicious is a defined
term and will bring their own connotative filter is that likely to be less true
for FAIL?
_________________________________________________________________
Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_powerofwindows_122007
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html