[ietf-dkim] Unacceptable (was: ISSUE: SSP-02: Discardable inappropriately specifies possible verifier action)

[Steve Atkins]

On Feb 12, 2008, at 8:25 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> Douglas Otis wrote:
>
>> The assertion "discardable" will not resolve the declared problem
>> without also increasing the chances email with invalid signatures
>> of being discarded rather than rejected, or a DSN being generated,
>> even when the RFC 2821 FromMail is within the same domain.
>
> The term is MAIL FROM (46 occurences in RFC 4408).  IMO "suspicious"
> was better than "discardable".  The 2821bis terms for "discard" is
> "drop", adding tons of caveats, without noting non-technical facts,
> e.g., "dropping mail" can violate the "constitution" (or base law)
> where I live, and that is not on the same level as ordinary crimes.
>
> If you (not you personally) really must invent a new term instead
> of sticking to "suspicious" or simply FAIL (for auth-headers), how
> about using "unacceptable" ?  This clearly indicates the receivers
> already dropped the ball when they accepted any "unaccptable" mail.

That doesn't match the semantics of SSP.

"Discardable" does match the semantics of SSP.

Is the issue that you don't like the semantics SSP implies, or that
you'd prefer we were more circumspect about describing them?
They'd both be valid concerns, but they're quite different.

Cheers,
   Steve