Re: r= for instilling good domain-name practices

Doug,

>
> Without conventions established for the use of this parameter, it will
> offer only little value.  Without conventions, only the reliance
> parameter being greater than zero would be of any significance. 
> Conventions can recommend reliance levels for various types of sources
> such as:
>
> Administrators        9
> Transactional email    8
> Permanent Employees    7
> Automated messages    6
> Mailing lists        5
> Domain Users        4
> Bulk            3
> Proxy Service        2
> Transparent Service    1
> Guests            0
>
> With this type of list, a recipient wishing to annotate messages would
> have a far better idea what level of reliance could be placed upon a
> range of messages from an otherwise trusted and well-known domain. 
> Not all messages are trustworthy, even from a well-known domain. 
> Perhaps as a general practice, all domains would default to receiving
> elevated annotation when exceeding a level of 5.

This seems to me to be a poor man's version of SSP, and I would think
that we would consider it in such a context.  But even if we were to
consider this now, wouldn't different selectors cover this ground?

Eliot