Yakov Shafranovich <research(_at_)solidmatrix(_dot_)com> wrote:
In the current world the closest approximation we have to reputation
systems that are planned with LMAP are blacklists and Senderbase. Given
that current blacklists have numerous problems, why would any proposed
reputation or accrediation systems of the future be any different?
If you base the accreditiation system on something other than
personal prejudices (which is what most content filters and blacklists
end up being), then the accreditation becomes a little more useful.
How are we planning on avoiding the same problems we have today in
the future, if we want to deploy such systems?
Keep the accreditation focused on simple data which can be trivially
verified in the network. The only reason to have a centralized
accrediation service is to simplify record keeping. e.g. You *could*
find web pages by rooting around the net yourself, but it's a lot
easier just to use a search engine.
The #1 accreditation that I see is something to solve the MTA/MUA
imbalance. STMP should be an MTA to MTA protocol. SUBMIT has been
around for years now. People should use it. The lack of deployment
indicates that the IETF standards process has created a protocol for
which there's no demand.
Simply dropping the number of SMTP originators by 3 orders of
magnitude would make the spam problem hugely easier to deal with.
Alan DeKok.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg