stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Nov 19 15:38:12 CST 2009
On 11/19/09 1:20 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>> I'd also like some feedback on my proposal for server reputations. A
>> server is not boolean "good" or "bad", but probably some shade of grey.
>> I think that a new server on the network would start with a score of
>> zero. Its score would go up for:
>> Its score would go down (negative) for:
>> My main concern here is that we have objective criteria for scoring
>> servers, not arbitrary decisions by DNSBL operators.
> The interesting thing about scores is that you can do sensible things
> with them, instead of dead blocking.
> For example:
> A (very!) high scoring server may be blocked entirely.
I think that would be a very low scoring server, as in negative (at
least if we say zero = new server and we increment for good behavior and
decrement for bad behavior).
> A low scoring server, but still notably scored, may be blocked from
> sending messages to people not in their roster, or from joining rooms
> where they're not members, etc.
> Score can be used for rate limiting, etc.
Agreed. Lots of possibilities. :)
> The interesting thing about the former is that it's possible for two
> users who want to talk to each other to still do so, or to let users
> into chatrooms. This may be particularly interesting where the server
> is benevolent, but abused.
I'm sure we have a lot of those.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6820 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Operators