On Tuesday 05 September 2006 13:19, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > From: Douglas Otis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Sep 5, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > > Using the term 'practices' instead of policy is not going to fool > > > anyone, the objection is to the idea, not the name. The > > > > term practices > > > > > is highly loaded and has its own meaning and will cause even more > > > people to shudder. ... > I agree that the record ONLY contains a statement by the sender that is > descriptive of sender actions. > > However the record is not bound by protocol to the actual actions of the > sender and so the term 'practices' cannot be used with accuracy. What the > record specifies is in fact the intended practice. > > The English term for an intended practice is 'policy'. > +1
Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
