-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Douglas Otis
On Feb 12, 2008, at 8:57 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Feb 12, 2008, at 8:25 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
The term is MAIL FROM (46 occurences in RFC 4408). IMO
"suspicious"
was better than "discardable". The 2821bis terms for "discard" is
"drop", adding tons of caveats, without noting non-technical facts,
e.g., "dropping mail" can violate the "constitution" (or base law)
where I live, and that is not on the same level as ordinary crimes.
If you (not you personally) really must invent a new term instead
of sticking to "suspicious" or simply FAIL (for auth-headers), how
about using "unacceptable" ? This clearly indicates the receivers
already dropped the ball when they accepted any "unaccptable" mail.
That doesn't match the semantics of SSP.
"Discardable" does match the semantics of SSP.
Is the issue that you don't like the semantics SSP implies, or that
you'd prefer we were more circumspect about describing them?
They'd both be valid concerns, but they're quite different.
Your SSP assertion is defined in terms of verifier actions. Defining
this action is premature, and in the case of the term "discardable",
will likely result in often inappropriate actions. SSP could use the
term "non-compliant" with an assertion of being the "sole" legitimate
signer. Actions should remain within the discretion of the verifier,
where the state of the assertion is to be judged against compliance
with the domains assertions. "Discardable" does not match with this
semantic as it does not permit an assessment of compliance.
Are we talking about the policy tag value, or the description of email
that does not match the published policy? Perhaps part of the confusion
is that we appear to be using the term "discardable" in both contexts.
"Discardable" as a policy tag value does reflect the author POV. I
understand the concern that we may not want to be advocating actual
discarding of the messages that don't comply with the published author
practice for various reasons... perhaps that could be fixed simply by
updating the description/definition of the "discardable" category,
rather than by searching for an alternate tag value?
Ellen
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html