On 10/22, m...@khonji.org wrote: > www.ceas.cc/2006/19.pdf On 10/22, Claude Frantz wrote: > considered as importunate by another recipient. Therefore, an > universally valid SPAM ranking is not possible. Further, a SPAM ranking
The high rankings in spamassassin rule QA of existing blacklist and whitelist rules, in addition to this paper on google's reputation system, are ample evidence that universal reputation systems are useful. On 10/22, Henrik K wrote: > You should check out this draft: > http://www.mimedefang.org/reputation (An IETF draft of a Reputation Reporting Protocol.) Yup, thank you. It's interesting that the ASRG list didn't mention this. There's no way I'm following it, if only because it uses UDP, which allows forging of the sender's IP address (as mentioned in this document). Definitely ideas worth considering in there though. On 10/22, Royce Williams wrote: > Decentralized distribution would be the tricky part, of course. :-) I am a big fan of decentralization, but I'm not optimistic about its use for this task. I considered the possibility of everyone making their own publicly available reputation list first, to be aggregated by whoever wanted to use it. That would be insane. I'll make a point of making the server to report to user definable though. -- "When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries of life disappear and life stands explained." - Mark Twain http://www.ChaosReigns.com
