On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:55:14PM -0500, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
Mark E. Mallett wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 07:23:32AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
A couple of random remarks from a very cursory reading:
There is no difficulty in ensuring that accreditation providers
are accountable to email recipients. An accreditation authority
that provides incorrect accreditation will soon be ignored.
Pretty bold assertion :-)
It hasn't held true with some DNSBL services. Among other reasons is
the wide variety of definitions of "incorrect," as well as extremely
polar opinions about listing criteria, remedies, responsibility, et al.
The key difference from blacklists is that blacklists do not ask ISPs
whether they want to be listed. Here, the sender actively goes to a
provider and signs up, and then indicates his accredidation in some
protocol.
I don't think that's really a difference, at least not in all cases.
There will be "market forces" in play where (assuming the accreditation
system works) once enough recipients use a paricular set of
accreditors, there will be pressure for senders to be listed in at
least one of them.
Besides, the statement was about the services being accountable to the
recipients, not to the senders. That's quite analogous to DNSBLs
being accountable to their users. That isn't a truism, at least not
in my opinion. "Ethical consumerism" isn't likely to be present in
consumers of DNSBLs any more than it is in people looking for any
other goods and services (like choosing an ISP), not to mention that
the "ethics" involved (aka correctness) are widely disputed. There
are tons of people using DNSBLs without any clue about how correct
those services are. I'm not trying to make any deep statement here
though, just a comment on the prediction.
mm
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg