On 8/24/2010 10:43 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
One can assess based on policy rather than reputation. In fact I can
think of several companies that popped up recently in this general space
(email authentication) to do just that.
That sounds as if the primary concern was with my use of the word 'reputation'.
Whereas I normally use the word "assessment", because it is less loaded with
semantic baggage, I chose the much more popular term reputation as the generic
label. I'm not happy that's the publicly preferred term, but it is. And the
way average folk use it, it covers everything, including policy.
So if the real issue is with being more precise and differential, I'm certainly
fine with that. Again, please suggest alternative language for the text used.
Not just specific vocabulary comments, but replacement sentences.
Absolutely. Primary as you used it has a very specific meaning..... or
are we introducing fuzzy logic to the world of standards development and
As for my use of 'reputation', that's a convenient label that is
to refer to an assessment phase.
Reputation is one subset of the possible implementations of assessment.
So, indeed, it appears the disconnect was between popular usage and more
technical usage. At the level my note was working,I meant the former.
Perhaps the question should be: If you are that uncomfortable with
I used, what alternative language would you offer. Having that would
allow some best-fit comparison.
I am quite comfortable with what Wietse wrote. I was going to respond to
his post with a +1 for each of his points.
In terms of specifying constraints on a receiver, his language is accurate:
DKIM does not constrain usage. However my comment was about intent and the
intent of DKIM was to design a replacement for using IP Addresses in anti-spam
efforts, which means filtering engines.
"popular" does not equal primary.
By some popular measures, it does.
Careful for what you ask for. If we are going to reduce this to simply a
That's what rough consensus is, in socio-politico terms.
I'll assume that it's too early in the day for you to have started
I'll have to admit to confusion about this exchange. If it's just to
at me, while I readily acknowledge my convenience as a target, that's
done offline. If it is for a constructive purpose, such as improving
understanding about DKIM, please suggest superior language.
I am content to leave it as "email authentication, including DKIM is a
useful and good thing. The more that DKIM signing is implemented, the
greater the opportunity for receivers/evaluators to do useful things".
Whereas I believe the term "authentication" has proven highly misleading. It's
a labeling technology, where the authentication of the label is actually
secondary to the presence of the assertion of the label.
And the key aspect of that secondary point is that the only thing being
authenticated is the label.
If reputation floats your boat then knock your socks off. I seem to
remember a venerable member of this list floating a proposal that wasn't
supposed to compete with reputation..... AffiL or something or other.
Again, I used 'reputation' as a synonym for 'assessment' and Affil certainly
conforms to that. If you want to deride usage of reputation in that way,
complain to the bulk of the anti-spam community, not me.
requires my acknowledging that I never view my opinion as humble.
Aw, I stand corrected. Humble or not your opinions are always
interesting and valuable
wow. I thought you knew me better than that...
Second, you appear to be seeking to enforce a linguistic etiquette for
that is exceptional. Possibly a good idea, but certainly not well-
Exceptional? I think not but I'm too busy at the moment to wade through
the archives to provide examples.
"Exceptional" is a statistical assertion. To that end, "examples" do not
suffice. My point was about dominant mode, not occasional moments of light and
ps. If we have correctly identified the core disparity as being between my use
of the word "reputationa" which I meant extremely broadly as a synonym for
"assessment" and your preference for using it only as a narrow and subordinate
term under some more generic label, then I think we are not in disagreement
about the concept and only debating vocabulary. If that's true, this thread
probably run its course.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to