On 10/11/2004 4:39 PM, John Leslie sent forth electrons to convey:
Matthew Elvey <matthew(_at_)elvey(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 10/10/2004 9:46 AM, Mark sent forth electrons to convey:
... what is the point of (being allowed to) point to an reputation
service of your own choice? Yea, of your own making even? Then people
will just do what you did: set up an extra record for themselves,
and give themselves a big A+.
Let me try to answer this in the form of a suggested addition to the FAQ:
Q: Why does CSV allow the sender to specify the reputation services that
will vouch for it?
Good question!
A: It's an efficiency thing. The sender does this, but the receiver
will only look up the reputation at reputation services it respects.
This is more efficient than the sender checking for a reputation with
all the reputable reputation services it knows about.
If the sender specifies a disreputable reputation service or a
reputation service that itself lacks a reputation, it will be ignored.
It's more efficient given the (IMO valid) assumption that there will
typically be more reputable reputation services than reputable
reputations of a given FQDN. I anticipate a dozen or more of the former
and just a few of the latter will be typical.
Let me try rephrasing a few things:
" A: When the sender "suggests" accreditation service(s), this aids both
" the receiver and other accreditation services to know where to check
" for up-to-date information about the sending domain. Otherwise, there
" can be months-long delays before a particular service checks the
" performance of that domain and updates its report.
"
" Senders should be careful to "suggest" accreditation services which
" themselves have a good reputation. Otherwise, folks are likely to
" ignore whatever they report. Often, it will be best to suggest more
" than one accreditation service, since opinions of them may vary.
(I realize that didn't come out looking much like your suggestion.
I don't mind! I do think something about efficiency, should be in there
though.
But I think it's critically important to make the point about quickness
of updates; and it's also worth recommending listing more than one.
Yup, yup.
Feel free to comment on my wording -- we can't update the FAQ anyway
until Dave Crocker and I agree, since there are separate copies
currently published.)
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
v3:
A: The sender just suggests accreditation services. This helps both
the receiver and other accreditation services to quickly find up-to-date
information about the sending domain.
Receivers will query only suggested services they feel are reputable. It's
more efficient to check one such service than to check many reputable services
to find one with opinion regarding the sender.
" Senders should be careful to "suggest" accreditation services which
" themselves have a good reputation. Otherwise, folks are likely to
" ignore whatever they report. Often, it will be best to suggest more
" than one accreditation service, since opinions of them may vary.
On 10/10/2004 2:11 PM, Matthew Elvey thought he sent forth electrons to convey:
Hey, I only just noticed the FAQ, mentioned on the list
(http://www.jlc.net/MARID/CSV/FAQ.html).
It's useful.
I was thinking of grabbing the text and putting it on the wiki and
updating it. Do you object or would you prefer feedback another way?