On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Douglas Otis <[email protected]> wrote: > There will be work involved when dealing with opaque i= values when > assessing reputations. Any amount of consolidation of this information will > induce a higher degree of collateral blocking. It seems best to keep this > an opaque value that the sender fully controls.
Those opaque i= values will be of some use to the sender. I see no reason why the receiver can't simply ignore them. > The ADSP draft failed to understand the how i= might be used, and prevents > its practical application. ADSP's fatal flaw is that it is a collection of sender pipe dreams that seek to force a complex and none too workable reputation model on receivers, with a high potential to be gamed simply by playing with the various permutations and combinations of d= and i= .. there is little or no incentive for receivers to deploy it. If that effort is still on, might be safe to simply kill it off. Of course there are practical applications .. at the sender side for identification of individual authors and managing / analyzing their reputation. Just please dont expect receivers to do anything at all useful with that data e&oe previous out of band understanding between specific senders and receivers (or groups of senders and receivers like maawg). --srs -- Suresh Ramasubramanian ([email protected]) _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
