Frank Ellermann wrote:
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.
I don't want to get into the discussion of the best word to use; for me,
"aardvark" would be fine. But this points out what seems to be a
misunderstanding in SSP-02: Unlike the output of SSP-01 which was an
evaluation of the message with respect to SSP, the output of SSP-02 is
the practice itself. It's not saying something about the message, it's
just telling the Evaluator what the practices are.
Although the names don't (or shouldn't) matter, the definition of
Suspicious in SSP-01 was definitely an evaluation of the message.
Unacceptable, although I haven't seen a definition for it, gives the
same sense that it's passing judgment on the message, which is something
that a great many WG participants had a problem with in SSP-01.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html