<robert(_at_)barclayfamily(_dot_)com> wrote:
I think FAIL actually has a stronger connotation than non-compliant.
[...]
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?
I've just checked how RFC 4408 solved this, it uses "Fail" (etc.) in
double quotes, and has a separate subsection for each of the *seven*
result codes - now here's something where SSP can do better, *seven*
is hilarious ;-)
Using upper case was no option, the 2119 keywords (MUST etc.) are
already upper case, some critical SPF terms like MAIL FROM and HELO
also use upper case (inherited rom 2821), and adding more upper case
terms would be unreadable.
SSP could use "Whatever" in double quotes, at the moment it uses
a title case Suspicious without double quotes. For some value of
"Whatever", not necessarily "Fail" - but I think it will end up as
"hardfail" in the Authentication-Results RFC.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html