IANAL, but I'd be
fascinated to see the matter of any claim brought against a
*whitelisting* service. Do you have any references to such
action to hand?
I don't. Blacklisting services of course have been subject to many
suits. However, whitelisting services are relatively new.
IANAL either,
but someday someone is going to be denied a listing and will sue. (If
Rene Descartes had been born in our time he'd have said "I sue,
therefore I am.") The best protections I think are a) very clear
guidelines on what is required in order to get onto the list, and b)
multiple lists, or to put it another way, no monopoly on the
whitelist.
There is about a century of litigation over various types of
accreditation service. I don't see how an email accreditation
would be a more serious littigation target than a bond rating
service or an analysts recomendation.
It is not a trivial issue but it is one that is understood by
the industry.
As for providing a mechanism for including "external references"
to "reputation" or "accreditation" services in
MARID-dependent schemes (either in publishing or in the
recommended algorithm for evaluating messages), some think it
a good idea. Personally, I'd consider it more a matter for
local policy. But I'm easily persuaded, especially as such
mechanisms might address (what's been identified as) the
forwarding issue.
I think senders should have a mechanism to tell receivers
what services
rate/accredit them. Otherwise, in the absense of a monopoly
accreditation service, the receiver has no way of knowing
which service
to query.
Agree completely.
As a result, I think this means we need a standard way for senders to
publish this information and a standard location where receivers find
it. The exact location & syntax are probably beyond MARID scope. We
just need to get the extensibility right.
Agree completely.