John Levine wrote: >> I know you didn't ask me this, but (sorry), if we decide to change >> "Suspicious" to something else then we might as well go fully P.C. and >> change it to "a message of interest." >> > > How about changing it to something descriptive like "not SSP > validated"? That's what it is, after all. > > We're much better off describing what the software does rather than > implying what we the recipient might think about it. > Seems a little circular to me. "not SSP validated" might also be interpreted as, "we haven't applied SSP to this message", even though we know that SSP doesn't really "validate" messages at all.
-Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
