Steve Atkins wrote: [Unacceptable] > That doesn't match the semantics of SSP. > "Discardable" does match the semantics of SSP. > Is the issue that you don't like the semantics SSP implies, > or that you'd prefer we were more circumspect about > describing them?
I'm not sure - I just prefer to stay as far as possible away from "dropping mails" (even if that's what will happen in practice). "Rejectable" could be fine, but a dictionary I use does not recognize "rejectable" as proper English. To stay out of trouble FAIL is IMO also fine, but IIRC folks here did not like FAIL, and they did not like "suspicious". >From my POV "discardable" is worse. Above all receivers have to follow 2821bis. SSP does not guarantee that "discardable" mails match what is specified in 2821bis section 6.2. Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
