Re: r= for instilling good domain-name practices

J.D. Falk wrote:

> One signer's r=3 might connote a level of verification equivalent to 
> another signer's r=8.  So as a recipient, I'd have to keep track of 
> the domain, the selector, AND the r value...even though I'll be making 
> my reputation decision based entirely on criteria of my own choosing.  
> So, I might as well just ignore the r value.

Right. One lingering concern that I had is that a large domain like, oh say,
Yahoo! might not have very good control over some of its population, thus
diluting its reputation. But with the selector segregation, you just put the
riff-raff in their own part of the namespace, the corpro-spammers in theirs,
etc, etc, giving the necessary hooks for somebody to hang different 
reputations
on. Problem solved; r= brings nothing more to the table because I don't
trust anything positive a signer  says anyway.

      Mike