On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Douglas Otis <dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org>
There will be work involved when dealing with opaque i= values when
assessing reputations. Any amount of consolidation of this information will
induce a higher degree of collateral blocking. It seems best to keep this
an opaque value that the sender fully controls.
Those opaque i= values will be of some use to the sender. I see no
reason why the receiver can't simply ignore them.
The ADSP draft failed to understand the how i= might be used, and prevents
its practical application.
ADSP's fatal flaw is that it is a collection of sender pipe dreams
that seek to force a complex and none too workable reputation model on
receivers, with a high potential to be gamed simply by playing with
the various permutations and combinations of d= and i= .. there is
little or no incentive for receivers to deploy it. If that effort is
still on, might be safe to simply kill it off.
Of course there are practical applications .. at the sender side for
identification of individual authors and managing / analyzing their
reputation. Just please dont expect receivers to do anything at all
useful with that data e&oe previous out of band understanding between
specific senders and receivers (or groups of senders and receivers
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com)
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to