Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 15 July 2013 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F38011E81AD for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vOfT51l4v5fS for <domainrep@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com (mail-wi0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88DA111E8133 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id c10so3179361wiw.4 for <domainrep@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=is2fG9sF8zbsS3bOKKWbzphyccLmSM92LnlNrEAq8F0=; b=xMxizRY4W4ybHrVaZGkGboJNbeHHiV+pPCV3FEUgw7tRmvGJYhhKWB2AH2fo7wnvWV 6q78RU/VXO695mpi7Xk7O6nLc720hHBdOI0idcFeYxueTX4Q9k3jDNPT1/SQ36TNU8Hh /GbT8HgPba+5nyWsBPkgoN4bFmieSszgndwE/K0mOmnyBQ5KOLQgyok8loNISIlIjus3 ZYnFt6Dspf2wOf0JqZA1TMIBj21pkw2/8qfPJE8FnBZJwmmFXriFxwoUyYBoVqOYd2p8 20HDXbUS00XuzE8VefP3Zu3KI/QolaFvKLG32EKUdUr1frB9ot8BbS9/UOxwGE5IEPfk qIOQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.89.231 with SMTP id br7mr9701500wib.19.1373908366635; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.90.16 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:12:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130713184213.39838.qmail@joyce.lan>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307130131020.62942@joyce.lan> <20130713184213.39838.qmail@joyce.lan>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:12:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaWAmhcvt_2DUMShk=_V7PRvfZujQDFVHy3YY7y348Z-Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3ba25525b8f204e18ff833
Cc: "domainrep@ietf.org" <domainrep@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC
X-BeenThere: domainrep@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Domain Reputation discussion list <domainrep.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/domainrep>
List-Post: <mailto:domainrep@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep>, <mailto:domainrep-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:12:48 -0000

On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 11:42 AM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

> In article <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307130131020.62942@joyce.lan> you write:
> >> Think of it as the likelihood that a bad rating from a given user is a
> >> local incident versus a trending problem.
>
> How about this:
>
> well-behaved: An estimate by the reputation service provider of the
> long term behavior of the rated identity, expressed as a
> floating-point number between 0.0 and 1.0 inclusive.  If the entity's
> rating is significantly different from the well-behaved score, it is
> likely an aberration.  For example, in an e-mail rating system, a high
> well-behaved score and a low rating might indicate a responsible
> network leaking spam due to security problems, and a low well-behaved
> score and a high rating might indicate a spammer who is between
> hosting providers.
>
>
>
Close.  The second sentence isn't quite what's intended; if the
"well-behaved" score is high, then a client can expect a unusual rating
(high or low) to be short-lived.  I don't think there's a need to tie the
two values together as your text has done.

Does that make sense?

-MSK