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

[Jon Callas]

-----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 -0000, Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com> 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 extra care is needed.  I wonder whether there really is a
>> developer who would be confused by the term and not know what to  
>> do.  If
>> so, please explain why you are confused by the text.
>
> How about "irregular"?

Irregular is also good.

I don't have any problem with "suspicious," myself, but I understand  
why some people have concerns. That's why I suggested "exception,"  
which isn't a pejorative. "Irregular" is also non-pejorative.

	Jon


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 2.6.3
Charset: US-ASCII

wj8DBQFHarNysTedWZOD3gYRAqrWAJ99Iwx/+H3pCcj+eQVr1B05D5edOwCgvmFX
Tkp8Lt1WYDlGMVQmbuYUUio=
=Wzi2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----