Subject: [Asrg] reputation tag model

From: "David Nicol" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:41:58 -0600

> > Maybe I'm dense, but why would anyone care about alleged reputation
> > data that a sender included in his own headers?  It only makes sense
> > for recipients to check reputations of incoming mail.

sender@bigisp's MUA  submits message to
MTA@bigisp  for relaying to recipient@destination over an authenticated
channel.

MTA@bigisp adds reputation tag describing sender@bigisp's reputation
and the fact that the message arrived over an authenticated channel.

MTA@destination receives message

MTA@destination verifies MTA@bigisp's tag
MTA@destination adds tag describing MTA2@bigisp's authentication *
MTA@destination adds reputation tag describing MTA2@bigisp's reputation

recipient@destination's MUA analyzes both reputation tags and
treats message accordingly without having to do a reputation or identity
verification lookup on sender@bigisp.

recipient may submit reputation tuning requests through channels
described within tags through "standard" feedback request protocols.

* Received-SPF- tags are authentication tags currently in use in this role

The proposed tagging prefixes Is-*, Is-Not-*, If-* and If-Not-* could map
very well into reputation.  The initial use of them, providing feedback to
statistical junk identifying systems, could be considered a kind of reputation
system, where the granularity of the reputation is the words or phrases in
the message, rather than an authenticated sender.

Given a "Welcome" (instead of "Junk") tag to indicate reputation, a MUA
that respected SJMDP's tags and could generate tuning requests using
the instructions in the If- tags could send tuning instructions to the
reputation
tagger with the same ease as sending tuning instructions to the statistical
junk tagger.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg