Michael Thomas wrote:
John R. Levine wrote:
I remain unable to reconcile "this is very important" and "throw it away"
applied to the same message.
The problem here is that you shouldn't be mixing up human values of
"importance"
or not, with the mechanical policy that "if something is unsigned, don't
deliver it". ADSP does the later, not the former. And if notions of
"importance" were
accidentally brought into the language of the ADSP RFC, they should be removed
because it's neither needed, or enlightening in any way.
+1, well said Mike and its not the first time of course.
The deterministic properties that POLICY offered has been, for lack of
a better word, "deemphasized" with the focus on allowing unrestricted
resigners hence we are left with only a guessing game and/or need to
get receivers to use a common reputation service, with an propensity
to serve only certain high value domains to have a greater "meaning"
over the general population of domains.
Low or high value, all domains have to be treated with a fundamental
equal mechanical, deterministic process first before we can even deal
with indeterminate conditions.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html