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

[Steve Atkins]

On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> <robert at barclayfamily.com> 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 RFC 4408 solved this, it uses "Fail" (etc.) in
> double quotes, and has a separate subsection for each of the *seven*
> result codes - now here's something where SSP can do better, *seven*
> is hilarious ;-)
>
> Using upper case was no option, the 2119 keywords (MUST etc.) are
> already upper case, some critical SPF terms like MAIL FROM and HELO
> also use upper case (inherited rom 2821), and adding more upper case
> terms would be unreadable.
>
> 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 it will end up as
> "hardfail" in the Authentication-Results RFC.

+1 for "Whatever" as the descriptive term.

Cheers,
   Steve