Michael Thomas wrote:
Beyond that, more information for receivers
is better. If it's unuseful to you, don't use it. Same goes for -base.
I suspect your view is widely held. I suspect it also is incorrect.
One likelihood of the view is that there will be masses of different kinds of
information. I think it reasonable to assume that only a small fraction will
actually be useful.
An implied premise of your view is that there is essentially no cost in dealing
with a mass of un-useful information. Yet it is clear that each bit carries costs.
It carries costs in creation. It carries costs in processing. And it carries
costs in setting expectations that won't be met.
In the aggregate, these can combine into something that is very expensive and --
worse -- lessens the overall credibility of the underlying mechanism.
I characterize the view you state as: "default to include as much as you can and
worry about utility later".
My own experience with Internet-scale mechanisms is that the view needs to be:
"default to exclude anything that does not have a compelling use case and strong
indication of community need/desire."
d/
ps. Let me stress that even if I've distorted what you actually meant, I think
that my note does respond to a view that is widely held.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html