Seth -
Community operated blacklists give me all the reputation
information I need for free. Accreditation doesn't offer me
anything of value.
Receivers don't have to pay to access information received
from accreditation services.
This means any receiver can use this information if they
wish to augment other available sources to determine the
trustworthiness, or lack of trustworthiness of a
particular sender.
For example, if the accreditation service uses a listing
concept to outline specifically the sender's policies, a
receiver can use this information to make decisions based
on their own local policy as to what steps it wishes to
take in dealing with a message received from sender
accredited by this service.
Anybody whose business it is to accredit email senders
where such accreditation is in both parties mutual interest
is, in fact, a conflict of interest.
You are stating since senders are paying the bill,
therefore the accreditation service will be biased towards
senders as opposed to receivers.
This is based on a presumption which is not correct.
For an accreditation service to have any value, the fact
senders are paying the bills must in and of itself have no
bearing on how the accreditation service operates.
How do you establish:
* the review criteria before acceptance;
* the standards of performance by senders;
* the criteria for punishment; and
* how that punishment is meted out?
Other questions include:
* Do you establish a board of advisors?
* If so, what should be the role of this board and who
should be on this board?
In answering these questions, one has to ask the receiving
community for comment, input and guidance since this is the
community which will receive the benefit of the service.
Of course, receivers can decide despite all this, we don't
trust these folks.
We think they are in the pay of senders and we will not use
their service no matter what they say.
My response?
If this is the general consensus then it is back to the
drawing board. What has been done incorrectly and what is
needed to rectify the situation.
Of course some people will simply decide they have no
interest in using such a service no matter who is involved
and how it is set up.
Therefore one has to look to the source and assess whether
that is the situation. If so, all you can say to the
individual (s) who are expressing these views is thank you
very much for your input and move on.
John
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
--
Seth Goodman
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in
Atlanta features SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate
your subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 11/08/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 11/08/2004