-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dec 19, 2007, at 2:16 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 06:27:55 -, Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Bingo. We are wasting time on what I think is an extraordinary
>> superficial issue. Jim's original term "Suspiciou
Eliot Lear wrote:
Hector,
So much for getting the "easy issues" out of the way. :-)
Bingo. We are wasting time on what I think is an extraordinary
superficial issue. Jim's original term "Suspicious" was defined within
the document, and did not in itself mean that the message was a forgery
-
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 06:27:55 -, Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bingo. We are wasting time on what I think is an extraordinary
superficial issue. Jim's original term "Suspicious" was defined within
the document, and did not in itself mean that the message was a forgery
- just that ex
Hector,
>>
>> +1 for "Whatever" as the descriptive term.
>
> hahahahaha!
>
> So much for getting the "easy issues" out of the way. :-)
>
Bingo. We are wasting time on what I think is an extraordinary
superficial issue. Jim's original term "Suspicious" was defined within
the document, and did no
Steve Atkins wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ...
>>
SSP could use "Whatever" in double quotes, at the moment it uses
a title case Suspicious without double quotes. For some value of
"Whatever", not necessarily "Fail" - but I think
On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think FAIL actually has a stronger connotation than non-compliant.
[...]
If the concern is that people won't understand that Suspicious is a
defined term and will bring their own connotative filter is that
lik
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think FAIL actually has a stronger connotation than non-compliant.
[...]
> If the concern is that people won't understand that Suspicious is a
> defined term and will bring their own connotative filter is that
> likely to be less true for FAIL?
I've just checked how
Sorry for joining the debate a bit late. My $.02 are below
Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Jim Fenton wrote:
>
> > My suggestion: "non-compliant"/"compliant".
>
> If "non-compliant" is actually a "Resent-* as
> specified in 2822upd with a twist" (signature
> didn't survive it), then that's rathe
On Dec 18, 2007, at 6:55 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Jim Fenton wrote:
My suggestion: "non-compliant"/"compliant".
If "non-compliant" is actually a "Resent-* as specified in 2822upd
with a twist" (signature didn't survive it), then that's rather
strong.
Any changes to message content
Jim Fenton wrote:
> My suggestion: "non-compliant"/"compliant".
If "non-compliant" is actually a "Resent-* as
specified in 2822upd with a twist" (signature
didn't survive it), then that's rather strong.
Why not FAIL ? FAIL is short, neutral, and
some folks are used to the idea that FAIL is
a d
10 matches
Mail list logo
