On 07/23/2012 06:47 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Michael Thomas <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com
There seems like there are many things wrong with this sort of
"helpfulness". If a given selector is dodgy, the reputation system
should figure that out for itself. Believing even a vaguely
positive-assertion from the source is almost certainly a mistake,
and likely to be gamed if you do.
To be precise, the thinking was more "Don't ascribe any positive benefit to
this message based on our reputation." You could still adjust your reputation
of the signer based on the quality of what that domain is signing. It's a
voluntary negative-only assertion.
Yes, I got that. I still think it's a bad idea to pay attention to it as it's
very likely that the reputation service will be gamed if it does.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to