Wietse Venema wrote:
Jim Fenton:
I'd like to see if there is consensus for my proposal to remove the term
before suggesting specific language.
I suggest: you propose a concrete replacement, and if it is better,
then we adopt it.
If it helps, Jim, I'd support a better term -- if anyone can think of one.
But the linguistic centers of my brain would rather be writing poetry, so
anything I'm likely to come up with would be even /more/ opaque than "opaque."
(Fuliginous? Turbid? Otissian?)
--
J.D. Falk
Return Path Inc
http://www.returnpath.net/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html