On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:36:28 -0400, François Pinard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[David MacQuigg] > >> Getting these methods widely and effectively used is our big >> challenge, and one that I hope to accomplish with my efforts. > >I wish one of these methods, either yours or one of these few others >which were developed and proposed in the recent years, will succeed. I don't have a method, and that is a key part of the strategy. The Registry is intended to support all methods. My main technical contribution, if you can call it that, is to figure out how we can tie these methods into a system where not all participants are using the same method. ( An inter-operability protocol, if you need a fancy name.) >It might be useful, for someone involved like you are (thanks for all of >us!), that you make a survey of those others, trying to understand why >they failed to acquire popularity, not repeating the same errors if any. The main reason for the current failure is that the effort to achieve a common authentication standard has degenerated into a war. I did try to find information on other attempts at setting up a Registry/Clearinghouse of reputation information. There has been an effort by Spamhaus to establish such a registry, but they were counting on senders to support it. That seems to me a fatal flaw. Our plans are to have *receivers* support the registry via subscription fees. Senders will need an incentive, and that will be provided by receivers who use the Registry to clear reputable mail, and send the rest to a spam filter. There are also some successful proprietary systems, like IronPort Senderbase, that I think are similar, but I don't know the details. You have to pay them big bucks for a "spam appliance". -- Dave -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
