[ietf-dkim] Let's avoid "opaque"
aiverson at spamresource.com
Mon Feb 9 10:03:41 PST 2009
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Jim Fenton <fenton at cisco.com> wrote:
> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> +1 for opaque. People seeking alternatives are cordially requested to
>> consult a copy of Websters Thesaurus.
> I don't have a copy of Webster's Thesaurus, but Webster's New Collegiate
> Dictionary lists synonyms (in ALL CAPS) in a couple of its definitions.
> def. 2a: Hard to understand or explain : UNINTELLIGIBLE
> def. 2b: OBTUSE, STUPID
> I didn't find your suggestion helpful, Suresh.
Suresh actually has a point, and I think the thesaurus backs it up.
The use of the data may be static, and perhaps receivers will find it
a use for it, but the field contents as observed by the receiver, is
likely to obtuse or unintelligible. Opaque.
This is a mountain being lovingly crafted out of a molehill..........I
don't really care if, at the end of the day, "opaque" is replaced with
another term or a different description. But, just for the record,
this is what opaque means in common usage in technology applications.
Google is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_cookie
Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com
News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com
My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com -- Chicago, IL, USA
More information about the ietf-dkim