[ietf-dkim] Issue 1530 - replace use of term "suspicious"

[Jim Fenton]

Michael Thomas wrote:
> Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>>
>> Jon Callas 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.
>> ...
>>>
>>> How about something like "SSP Exception"? Metaphorically, it works 
>>> well with the programming use of the word exception.
>>
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> In the hope of trying to close some of the "easy" Issues, would folks
>> comment on this specific proposal, or otherwise post comments seeking
>> closure of the Issue?
> My suggestion is to just to take the exception/violation reason. For
> example, "all-exception", "strict-exception", "nxdomain-exception"
> and the like. A single word even if it's value-neutral gives the wrong
> impression that all exceptions/violations/suspicion should be given
> the same weight. Just saying what it is that went wrong doesn't
> do that.

+0.5

Agree that a name change is in order, and that we need more than a
binary 1/0 result.

But "exception" makes it sound like a kernel panic or something.  Hector
had some alternative interpretations of "exception" too.  My
suggestion:  "non-compliant"/"compliant".

-Jim