-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 19, 2007, at 2:16 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 06:27:55 -0000, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Bingo. We are wasting time on what I think is an extraordinary
superficial issue. Jim's original term "Suspicious" was defined
within
the document, and did not in itself mean that the message was a
forgery
- just that extra care is needed. I wonder whether there really is a
developer who would be confused by the term and not know what to
do. If
so, please explain why you are confused by the text.
How about "irregular"?
Irregular is also good.
I don't have any problem with "suspicious," myself, but I understand
why some people have concerns. That's why I suggested "exception,"
which isn't a pejorative. "Irregular" is also non-pejorative.
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 2.6.3
Charset: US-ASCII
wj8DBQFHarNysTedWZOD3gYRAqrWAJ99Iwx/+H3pCcj+eQVr1B05D5edOwCgvmFX
Tkp8Lt1WYDlGMVQmbuYUUio=
=Wzi2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html