I see the interests as being balanced rather than conflicted.
An accreditation provider has two interests:
1) Issue accreditations
2) Maintain a high accreditation value
The key here is that the evaluation of the worth of accreditation is not in
the hands of the accreditor, it is the spam filter that assigns this value -
in most cases empirically.
So the accreditation provider has to see (2) as being fully compatible with
(1) over the long run. Only a short-termist accreditor is going to blow
their reputation by being sloppy.
Phill
-----Original Message-----
From: Meng Weng Wong [mailto:mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 8:39 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] how blacklisting will work in the
future: pki
a ccreditation
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 05:36:31PM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
|
| I suspect that it is much cheaper to get accredited than to
deal with the
| current situation where you can spend weeks trying to get
removed from
| random blacklists you didn't know about.
|
Well, that sounds good. Apart from the conflict-of-interest problems,
we seem to have mapped the problem domain to the solution domain, and
the solution domain to the economic domain.
-------
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?¡
-------
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?¡