Re: SPF abused by spammers

[Margaret Olson <margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sep 14, 2004, at 6:03 PM, Alex van den Bogaerdt wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 01:44:19PM -0700, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
>
> > All three have a part - an important part.  Authentication gets you to
> > "who is this really?";  accreditation gets you to "what are they
> > doing?", and reputation gets you to "what do others whom I trust think
> > about what they are doing".
>
> Authentication: yes.
> Reputation: yes.
>
> Accreditation: why would I care?
>
> By this I mean: can you give an example of how this would change my
> opinion based on their reputation?

Very small senders won't have the volume to create a statistically 
significant reputation. But if they are accredited ("this is a shoe 
shop, established in 1985, uses good practices") and the reputation 
data is essentially empty, then you know something.

If you just have empty reputation without accreditation you don't know 
if they are new, and potentially churning identities, or just small.

Margaret.