Steve Atkins:
> My original observation was that "discardable" was a reasonable term
> for mail for which the sender prefer the recipient not deliver a small
> fraction of legitimate email and a small fraction of non-legitimate
> email rather than deliver either.
>
> There was an assertion made that the "small fraction" of non-
> legitimate email here was actually 100% of the non-legitimate email.
> That assertion was shown to be false, so we can ignore that digression
> and return to where I came in, which was:
>
> > It's an assertion that the sender would prefer that the recipient
> > not deliver some small fraction of legitimate email as well as some
> > small fraction of illegitimate email, rather than delivering those
> > small fractions of legitimate and illegitimate email.
> >
> > In the senders opinion, it is more important that mail claiming to
> > be from them not be delivered than for it to be delivered.
> >
> > The english meaning of "discardable" matches the semantics pretty
> > well. If we want implementors to easily understand and deploy the
> > specification, and more importantly the limits of them doing so,
> > thats fairly important.
+1.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
