Michael Thomas wrote: > Frank Ellermann wrote: >> Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> >>> With the use of language like "suspicious", SSP is making value >>> judgement on messages that do not satisfy SSP's criteria, even though >>> those message well might be entirely legitimate. >> >> Weasel words instead of "suspicious" would be an intentional lie. > > My suggestion is to remove "suspicious" and replace it with the actual > state of SSP itself. For example strict-violation or all-violation or > nxdomain-violation (or whatever). This removes the subject nature of > "suspicion" and its resulting idiosyncratic definition.
+1 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
