Michael Thomas wrote: >> John R. Levine wrote: >> I remain unable to reconcile "this is very important" and "throw it away" >> applied to the same message.
> The problem here is that you shouldn't be mixing up human values of > "importance" > or not, with the mechanical policy that "if something is unsigned, don't > deliver it". ADSP does the later, not the former. And if notions of > "importance" were > accidentally brought into the language of the ADSP RFC, they should be removed > because it's neither needed, or enlightening in any way. +1, well said Mike and its not the first time of course. The deterministic properties that POLICY offered has been, for lack of a better word, "deemphasized" with the focus on allowing unrestricted resigners hence we are left with only a guessing game and/or need to get receivers to use a common reputation service, with an propensity to serve only certain high value domains to have a greater "meaning" over the general population of domains. Low or high value, all domains have to be treated with a fundamental equal mechanical, deterministic process first before we can even deal with indeterminate conditions. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
