John Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> However, if the argument is going to be such that a reputation >> system is required, then, considering that that's probably the hard >> bit, I would tend to think that such a plan would be useful, no? > > I think I'm going to generically call this the World Hunger problem. > Is World Hunger an important problem to solve? Of course. Does that > mean we should define a standard solution for it? Heck no, because we > don't have anything close to a consensus about what the right solution > is. > > Standards processes work great when there's a working prototype and > the task is to clean it up, document it, and fix problems around the > edges. They don't work at all to invent something from scratch, and > very poorly to reconcile competing prototypes that are very different. > (MARID couldn't even deal with the tiny differences between SPF and > Sender ID). The only sort of reputation system that's anywhere near > mature enough to consider standardizing would be DNSBLs, and they > obviously aren't what we want. So forget it. > > At some point the reputation fog will start to clear and it'll become > evident what's worth standardizing. But we're nowhere near that point > yet.
Yes, and if there were a proposal for standardizing something that depended on solving World Hunger first, I would be skeptical of that too. -Ekr _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
