On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Eric Allman wrote:
Doug,
I am in no way married to the word DISCARDABLE. We used it in
SSP-02 because it matched ASP.
It has occurred to me that we've spent FAR too much time arguing
about exactly what word to use. I'm deeply tempted to switch to
numbers, special characters, or random gibberish strings so that
people have to read the actual description.
It's an assertion that the sender would prefer that the recipient not
deliver some small fraction of legitimate email as well as some small
fraction of illegitimate email, rather than delivering those small
fractions of legitimate and illegitimate email.
In the senders opinion, it is more important that mail claiming to be
from them not be delivered than for it to be delivered.
The english meaning of "discardable" matches the semantics pretty
well. If we want implementors to easily understand and deploy the
specification, and more importantly the limits of them doing so, thats
fairly important.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html