That's fine (I wrote this message before you suggested just removing the word in the other draft).
Does merely removing it work here too? Although, I don't have so many issues w/ traditional (unlike 'dummy'). If it makes more sense to leave traditional as it is, I'm fine. And to be clear, this is Roman's document.... He would have to be 'fine' with it too. Deb On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 4:55 PM Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@fifthhorseman.net> wrote: > On Sun 2025-06-08 05:36:06 -0400, Deb Cooley wrote: > > And just in case you missed it.... I'm attaching my message from > > Tuesday. > […] > > Same issue for this draft, except the only word is 'traditional'. I > > think 'classic' might work here too? what do you think? > > I don't like the word "classic" here, again, unless we define it > explicitly and narrowly in the terminology section. > > We're what, 40 years into the existence of e-mail now? and 30 years > into the existence of end-to-end encrypted e-mail? There are indeed > some traditions about how e-mail messages are structured. E-mail > messages that are structured according to those traditions are > "traditional". Calling them "classic" makes it sound to me like they > are somehow a shining example of things we wish we still had > (e.g. "classic cars" or "classic films"). If we could make it clearer > that these things are more like "classic mistakes" i'd feel more > comfortable with it ;) > > --dkg >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
