Not by DKIM.
Moving the community to a common vocabulary involving vetting is not DKIM's job.
It's a battle that should be fought by the folks in the vetting business.
DKIM should use a generic term that isn't one of the terms of art.
d/
Eric Allman wrote:
So Dave, is this a vote for a formal definition?
eric
--On July 12, 2006 5:01:37 PM -0400 Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
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