Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!)
2008-12-16 09:38:00
John Johnson wrote:
Alessandro Vesely wrote:
In general, the reliance of a reputation system is not an
objective datum. I'd invite ESPs to let users choose which
authorities they wish to trust. It is part of the anti-spam
policy, which is different from the firewall policy: _their_
mail, _my_ server.
Are you delivering 100% of the email destined for them? Or are you
treating the e-mail as __my_network_asset__ before delivery?
I just deliver mail to recipients. Well, after A-V filtering. Ah, I
also grab postmaster@, abuse@ and similar addresses.
Other than RBL's, what other choices do you allow your users to
tune?
I never meant to give them the root password, if that's what Chris
means by "allow them to diddle the server-level knobs directly".
What I wanted to say is that we would get better responses from users
if we were able to put better questions. Bayesian filters are so
ambiguous that we should be ashamed of proposing them: why would
people ever use artificial or natural intelligence if some much
simpler statistical data sufficed? And I don't mention TIS buttons, as
their ambiguity has been pointed out recently. Doesn't everybody agree
that we only use such tools because we have nothing better at hands?
Where does being responsive to your users end, and protecting your
network begin?
Hm... I don't work in a large corporate network, so that's possibly
where I misunderstand what someone else may mean by "policy". AFAICS,
being responsive and protective are not conflicting tasks. Hence, a
well planned anti-spam policy should provide for clear-cut user level
options, if at all possible. Whether setting those options is or is
not part of a system's anti-spam policy, is a terminological question.
(And the answer is?)
In particular, reputation systems deserve being at the user level.
This is rather an observation than an appeal: governments or similar
authorities in charge of patrolling the territory might have endorsed
some DNSBLs, say, as part of their job. However, that didn't happen,
and reputation, as the Credence paper that started this thread holds,
looks likely to remain based on users' judgment.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [Asrg] differential confidence, (continued)
- Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!), Seth
- Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!), Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!), Rich Kulawiec
- Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!), Franck Martin
- Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!), Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!), Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!), John Johnson
- Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!),
Alessandro Vesely <=
- Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!), David Nicol
- Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!), Alessandro Vesely
- Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!), Barry Shein
- Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!), mathew
- Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!), Barry Shein
- Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!), Steve Atkins
- Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!), Michael Thomas
- Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!), Chris Lewis
- Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!), Steve Atkins
- Re: [Asrg] A paper/project worth considering (found it!), Daniel Feenberg
|
|
|