On Sat, 2004-07-10 at 17:18, Andrew G. Tereschenko wrote:
[Mark Shewmaker]
(One evolutionary step: Instead of the middle-value being "new",
make it a plain "unknown", with all domains with no info in the
system having "unknown" reputations. Another step from there would
be for the RHS system to return an answer from "0" to "100", with
the "unknown" settable by the end user but by default being between
10 and 90.)
Why 0-100 ? 127.0.0.2-127.255.255.255 - 16581373 possible values while at
most 10000 will be valuable.
For most people 101, or 11, or 5 values are more psychologically
understandable than 256 or 16581373 values.
Computer types might like to think in terms of 0-255 levels in some
areas, but it's much easier to explain:
o "use '9' for 9 out of 10"
o "use '90' for 90%"
Than:
o "use '230' for 9 out of 10".
o "use '230' for 90%"
(As an aside, 50 is a clear midpoint between 0 and 100. You're supposed
to always have odd numbers of points so people immediately know how to
chose a midpoint. So [1,2,3,4] is out, but [1,2,3,4,5] can work.)
(I don't much care what the number range would be, just that it makes
sense in context.)
We can possibly create something like this:
spfv1 IN TXT "v=spf1 -exists:%{l}.bl.spamcop.net>1250 ~all"
I see what you mean there: "Don't much trust any mail purporting to be
from me as really being from me, but absolutely reject it if it comes
from an IP that these people really dislike", but...
I don't really see how such a statement would be of much use to anyone
practice. (Especially once people start rejecting softfails.)
However, if for some reason you did want such a statement, you could do
so by convincing spamcop.net to allow for evaluations such as:
"v=spf1 -exists:%{l}.greaterthan1250.comparison-bl.spamcop.net ~all"
The functionality you're after can be had without any extensions to the
spf spec. (Though I still don't see the point in it.)
--
Mark Shewmaker
mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com