[Changing subject as per Dave's request] I've thought about just sort of passively watching UAID values and building heuristics to guess whether they are worth assessing or not. It might be really useful, or it might just be a complete waste of resources. There's no good way to know for sure without doing the research first.
That said, I plan to do the research at some point in the (hopefully near) future. So long as the spec accounts for experimentation and doesn't forbid it, I think we'll be fine. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Macdonald [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:50 AM To: Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: Adkins, Michael; [email protected]; DKIM IETF WG Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871 On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:31:51PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >The few large cases are > >1. Exceptions to the general rule > >2. Useful only when backed with some out of band discussion about >these .. I trust you to know that when you sign email as good (or bad) >it probably is that . but how much would I trust other providers? Or >suppose a sender signs his mail streams as "transactional", "coi", >"soi", it entirely depends on how much I trust their assessment, and >in some cases whether the sender is actually emitting "coreg", >"leads", "harvested" > >That kind of corner case often involves a judgement call on the part >of the admin, and a shared understanding of the i= notation, and of >the underlying reputation model. ah, I think I understand now. This is simply a mechanism to limit the amount of potential i= values. If d= is in a some sort of list, then i= would be included the reputation model. I'd still think even given that model, you'd let the actions of the i= determine the trustworthness of the steam independent of what the owner of d= claims. -- Jeff Macdonald [email protected] _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
