Re: Email Web of Trust - Problem Statement

Mark Baugher <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. Has the group considered supporting a common policy as a basis for the 
> web?  Otherwise, there needs to be some language to represent a particular 
> member's policy.  Member A rates mail according to criteria x, y, z while 
> Member B uses v, w, x.  This seems intractable to me.

  Agreed.  So we don't try to solve it.  There are still numbers which
we can publish which are emperically verifiable, useful, and not
readily available on the net today.  The question is what those
numbers are...

> 2. Why not focus on mail operators as members of the web of trust rather 
> than users since there are far fewer (millions rather than billions?) of 
> operators than users, and it is the operators that can most reliably 
> support such a thing.

  The web of trust would explicitly avoid users or operators.  We're
talking about MTAs.

> 3. How is the web of trust realized cryptographically?  Or is it?

  I don't believe it needs to be.

  Alan DeKok.