[ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: suspicious terminology
mike at mtcc.com
Fri Dec 7 08:41:17 PST 2007
Jim Fenton wrote:
> John Levine wrote:
>>> I know you didn't ask me this, but (sorry), if we decide to change
>>> "Suspicious" to something else then we might as well go fully P.C. and
>>> change it to "a message of interest."
>> How about changing it to something descriptive like "not SSP
>> validated"? That's what it is, after all.
>> We're much better off describing what the software does rather than
>> implying what we the recipient might think about it.
> Seems a little circular to me. "not SSP validated" might also be
> interpreted as, "we haven't applied SSP to this message", even though we
> know that SSP doesn't really "validate" messages at all.
What's wrong with "Fails the SSP X test" for x = all,strict? That is
what is happening. Adding "suspicion" only muddies the waters as
it's a value judgment. Let the filter writers and other consumers of
SSP make that value judgment, and then we don't have to come
to an agreed upon -- and mostly likely very idiosyncratic -- meaning
of the word.
I'll again state that I don't understand the seeming aversion to more
than one bit for the outcome of the SSP test. It's like trying to shoehorn
all of SMTP's response codes into 200 ok and 500 fail. It's far more
useful to enumerate the actual reasons for success and failure from a
developer standpoint because I want to take different actions based
on why and what something passed/failed.
More information about the ietf-dkim