Subject: Re: [domainrep] Comments on draft-kucherawy-reputation-vocab-identity

From: "Rolf E. Sonneveld" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:39:43 +0100

On 11/1/11 1:51 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> I think we need a good definition of what a data point is, or failing that,
>> a good way for reputation systems to specify what they consider a data point
>> to be.
> I would suggest putting that on the list of things to resolve
> eventually rather than trying to resolve it now.  If I were telling
> you spam ratios per IP, I'd denominate it in perhaps tens or hundreds
> of messages.  If it were somone like Return Path who aggregates data
> from many large ISPs, it'd probably be hundreds of thousands.
>
> I also suspect there will be providers with useful data who will consider
> the counts proprietary.

Yep, there probably will be. This situation can be addressed with the 
filtering 'language' I proposed yesterday: if the query protocol would 
support a filter construct, the client can query for specific data and 
the server can either return the requested data, or send an 'unwilling 
to perform' response, if it considers this type of information as  
proprietry.

/rolf

---

From: "John R. Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 Nov 2011 08:50:49 -0400

> support a filter construct, the client can query for specific data and the 
> server can either return the requested data, or send an 'unwilling to 
> perform' response, if it considers this type of information as  proprietry.

I'd rather not reinvent sieve.  What's the advantage of requiring the 
provider to interpret a filtering language, rather than just sending 
everything to the client and letting it ignore what it doesn't like?  It's 
hard to imagine that the size savings would be significant, and there'll 
always be cases we haven't thought of that the client will have to handle 
anyway.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 14:14:49 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of John R. Levine
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 5:51 AM
> To: Rolf E. Sonneveld
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [domainrep] Comments on draft-kucherawy-reputation-vocab-identity
> 

+1.

I think the issue of data selection is one left to the server as part of its reputation calculation.  If you discover that the service provider is giving you results based on insufficient or inappropriately old data, you can ignore it, or change providers.

But in addition to that, the query format is extensible so if some service provider wants to enable such highly detailed queries, it can do so by making those query parameters known to you out-of-band.