But if a provider also gives the total mail volume seen, you
can do a ratio.
This is true, you can perform all the compensation factors yourself based on
your interpretation of the other person's data. Or you can put the
responsibility on the provider to make all the compensation factors based on
their first hand knowledge of their data and the way that they collected it.
This is all about complexity and where it gets managed. The design you
propose looks very much like the arrangement in traditional X.509 PKI where
the responsibility for managing complex trust relationships was pushed to
the application client. The result was horrendous complexity and the clients
kept having to upgrade to keep up with the latest version of X.509.
In this case there is no real variation in the output variable that people
are after. Push the complexity to the data provider.
There is no way that any spam filter is ever going to look at a promise not
to spam and then try to predict how effective that pledge would be to reduce
spam. Instead the spam filter is going to use some measurement of the
effectiveness of that particular pledge.
If you limit data providers to a single scale the complexity stays where it
belongs.
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡