On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Paul Ferguson
<fergdawgster(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:14 PM, John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net> wrote:
Reputation (as the name implies) is a prediction of the likelihood of
near-future behavior.
...based on previously observed behavior.
- ferg
So, what exactly does this mean when behavior suddenly changes? If a
domain or IP address (was well behaved yesterday) but begins spewing
badness today, what will your company do as an arbiter of whether mail
is accepted by your customers? Will you allow that domain or IP
address to spew badness? I highly doubt it. As some point once the
spewing has subsided you may (automatically or manually) again start
allowing traffic through from that domain or IP address. But that
isn't really reputation in the traditional sense of the word.
But that brings me back to my original question. If reputation doesn't
prevent a site from getting throttled or blocked when it goes bad,
what does reputation mean? It doesn't particularly protect the site
from the immediate consequences of going bad. It appears that the
responses are authoritative (this domain or IP is currently emitting
badness) rather than reputational (this site has a good reputation so
I will accept badness from it on the presumption they are going to
address it). I will grant that there may be some small slack cut based
on reputation but does it really extend that far?
Set aside whether you have personal contacts with someone at that
domain or ASN. That approach doesn't scale from either direction.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg