Re: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious"

ietf-dkim

2008-01-18 18:22:15

> The specification needs to use a label that is is a neutral, technical
> description of the state, rather than a value judgment on legitimacy.

If this issue has already been closed please ignore this message. Ifnot, I like "Compliant" and "Non-Compliant".


Arvel


_______________________________________________

NOTE WELL: This list operates according tohttp://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious", Arvel Hathcock Re: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious", Dave Crocker Re: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious", Arvel Hathcock RE: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious", Bill.Oxley Re: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious", Arvel Hathcock <=

Previous by Date:	Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Clarification about posting by first Author, Jon Callas
Next by Date:	Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics, Arvel Hathcock
Previous by Thread:	RE: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: replace use of term "suspicious", Bill.Oxley
Next by Thread:	[ietf-dkim] DKIM performance metrics studies?, Dave Crocker
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]