On 26/Jan/11 13:57, Graeme Fowler wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 13:38 +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
No, it shouldn't. Although delays in fixing problems may affect it,
reputation measures the willingness and the ability to deal with them,
rather than the mere frequency at which problems occur.
I (and no doubt several others) beg to differ.
You may define "reputation" in that way, but that definition cannot be
automated.
Not easily, but possibly...
At $workplace I use Exim to measure "reputation" - or "badness", or
possibly even "goodness" - as defined by a function of [behavior. ...]
So in my system, "reputation" is automated according to rates of hits on
certain criteria. This is just as valid a system as a manual one, and
should not be dismissed because it doesn't use human value judgements.
I'm not proposing to dismiss that. However, I think "goodness" is a
better term than "reputation" for such function. I propose to use the
term "reputation" for the value upon which one decides whether to send
an abuse report to the relevant entity. (Contrast that with deferring
or rejecting mail from it.)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg