Steve Atkins:
My original observation was that "discardable" was a reasonable term
for mail for which the sender prefer the recipient not deliver a small
fraction of legitimate email and a small fraction of non-legitimate
email rather than deliver either.
There was an assertion made that the "small fraction" of non-
legitimate email here was actually 100% of the non-legitimate email.
That assertion was shown to be false, so we can ignore that digression
and return to where I came in, which was:
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.
+1.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html