On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 06:55:49PM -0400, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 03:36:33PM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote:
|
| My initial conceptualization had the number of messages and complaints
| being a hidden component of the "risk score" as you call it, computed by
| the standalong GOSSiP server, the idea being that you'd offload that sort
| of computation to a system dedicated to doing it (unless you ran the
| GOSSiP server on your MX). You'd consult multiple GOSSiP servers for
| each identity, and you'd modulate their responses according to how much
| you trust each of the other GOSSiP servers.
Hiding things inside a score leads to guessing games.
Where possible, please provide all the input data and let
each receiver make up their own mind. The more data the
merrier. Dumbing things down into a single variable is
useful, but so is providing the entire data set to allow
special case logic.
The data would only be "hidden" in reporting to the MTA. You'd control
the MTA, and your own GOSSiP server. The data shared among the GOSSiP
servers would almost certainly be more detailed.
The idea here is not that there are a small handful of GOSSiP servers,
but that everyone runs one, in much the same way everyone runs spam
filters now.
--
Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin
mark(_at_)bitshift(_dot_)org
mark(_at_)seti(_dot_)org
Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute
http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org