Note that Phillip has clarified here that he's thinking in terms
of advertising multiple "accreditations". While I saw very little
point in being able to advertise only one, I see a potential for
great benefits from advertising many. The recipient can choose
which (if any) to "trust".
I suspect that there will be multiple levels here.
If there is a bonded sender type scheme it should suffice to be a
member of a single program (costs multiply otherwise).
But there is certainly a value to multiple performance evaluations.
Here the basic 'identity' accreditation proves that you are
a real business and shows that there is some considerable friction
that discourages 'churn and burn' use of addresses. It means that
you close the $9 buy a domain name vulnerability by making it a
$1000+ build a new fake corporate identity cost.
But you still need some control here, an ISP that does not police
their customers still needs to go on an 'downgraded' status.
Basically the accreditation programs have to work hard to be as
widely trusted as possible and provide information that is as accurate
as possible.
It is all about accountability, the accreditation service has to
be accountable to both sides, senders AND receivers.
As a receiver you get to choose whether to take any notice of
it at all, or even that the accreditation is so widely abused
that you will consider that advertising it reduces my reputation.
That, too -- though it's probably a very silly policy...
Or lacks an authentication component. That is the problem with
Habeas. Sure the Haiku/DRM type approach would work for some
applications, we use a similar scheme to police Siteseal, if someone
uses the program without consent the robot sends out the writs
with remarkably little human intervention (yes the provocations
without fraudulent intent do get spotted).
But in this application, against organized crime the haiku is
useless and many people now have it at a negative score.
My impression is no e-mail domain admins want any centralized
authority or collection thereof to say they're allowed to send
mail.
There's quite a difference between exactly-one "accreditation"
source and a potentially-large marketplace of "accreditation"
sources.
Yep. the accreditation services differentiate themselves by being
better (or not) at identifying spammers and discrediting them.
Phill