Not by DKIM. Moving the community to a common vocabulary involving vetting is not DKIM's job.
It's a battle that should be fought by the folks in the vetting business. DKIM should use a generic term that isn't one of the terms of art. d/ Eric Allman wrote: > So Dave, is this a vote for a formal definition? > > eric > > > --On July 12, 2006 5:01:37 PM -0400 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> There is very serious confusion in the public AND in the email >> anti-abuse community, about the terms "reputation" and >> "accreditation". Most folks within the anti-abuse community have >> clear and defininitions that make a useful distinction between the >> two. The problem is that the odds that any two such folk are using >> the same definitions is low. >> >> In the more general public, the term is too diffuse to have much >> meaning. >> >> Although it we might well not be able to change to poor use among >> the media, I believe we ought to try to be careful within our own >> community. >> >> d/ > > -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
