Eric Allman wrote:
In the spirit of using plain English, I think "reputation" is better,
because that's the term that the press is using and hence what people
know. However I agree with EKR that we need to be clear about what we
really mean here, since after all the press often misuses the word in
ways that we don't intend.
So, I'll 50% reverse my previous statement and say that "reputation"
does need a definition, but it doesn't have to have a formal, normative
definition. In fact, trying to come up with a normative definition
/would/ be out of scope.
I know I should not pursue this further, but I just can't help myself:
There is very serious confusion in the public AND in the email anti-abuse
community, about the terms "reputation" and "accreditation". Most folks within
the anti-abuse community have clear and defininitions that make a useful
distinction between the two. The problem is that the odds that any two such
folk are using the same definitions is low.
In the more general public, the term is too diffuse to have much meaning.
Although it we might well not be able to change to poor use among the media, I
believe we ought to try to be careful within our own community.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html