Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
A proposal for an accreditation mechanism is attached. This proposal
is based on the earlier RBL scheme proposed by Vixie, and designed to be
compatible with CallerID. I will submit as an ID later on today.
Is the other consent proposal being submitted as well?
I believe that we should have some facility here for a description
of the accreditation service. This is because the receiver has to arrive at
an evaluation of the accreditation service before the information can
converge. The ability to use learning systems is very attractive here.
Telling the learning system basic information about the format of the data
is pretty useful, what is the basis that the info was collected on, is the
data bit field formatted or in some other form?
I provide the start of a description language here but on second
thoughts the best approach here would be to write the data structure in XML,
stick it up on a web site and put the URL in the DNS. The format is not a
big priority for me at the moment since it only really affects the
accreditation services and the filter writers. I don't think that either
community will be particularly large (10 to 20 at most). It is not something
we need to make a priority when we are using our limited standards track
bandwidth.
There has been talk in at least four forums (ASRG, SMTP-VERIFY, MXCOMP
and main IETF list) about trust, establishing trust between two parties
and quering third party providers of information. The SMTP-VERIFY
subgroup is also talking about exchanging information on neutral metrics
like MTA volume via some protocol.
All of this brings question - can these ideas be somehow unified?
Yakov
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg