On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:18:00PM +0200, Koen Martens wrote:
Grin,
I got your point all along.
I was just trying to get some discussion going by elaborating a bit, but so
far only Mark has joined in and he hasn't really answered the problem with
sub-domaining if you ask me.
I guess this means a.example.com is just screwed if b.example.com
misbehaves..
Not at all. Take the following example, straight from GOSSiP:
Assume a ham-sender connects from <some IP>, using the address
foo(_at_)a(_dot_)example(_dot_)com(_dot_)
Assume a spammer connects from <the same IP>, using the address
bar(_at_)b(_dot_)example(_dot_)com(_dot_)
In GOSSiP, the identity for the hammer is a.example.com:<IP>. The
identity for the spammer is b.example.com:<IP>.
Two separate identities, two separate reputations.
There has been discussion in the past few days about data aggregation
across identities, but I think everyone agrees that there may be as many
dangers as benefits to such aggregation. Therefore, there won't be any
such aggregation in the initial release, and if and when that
aggregation is added, it will require significant testing to ensure the
good doesn't get lumped in with the bad.
--
Mark C. Langston GOSSiP Project Sr. Unix SysAdmin
mark(_at_)bitshift(_dot_)org http://sufficiently-advanced.net
mark(_at_)seti(_dot_)org
Systems & Network Admin Distributed SETI Institute
http://bitshift.org E-mail Reputation http://www.seti.org