Well, Your try it
if it doesn't work, or gets abused, you get rid of it.. It just *might* help. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Bramble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 6:27 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Web-o-Trust > I'm with Todd here. I see very little value here. I don't have a > problem with blocking E-mail from providers that aren't involved in bulk > mailing or don't have large communities of unregulated users. This > might help with some false positives related to administrator > discussions of banned words or techniques, but for normal E-mail traffic > I see this as not being of very much use. > > As with all such networks, as this grows larger, the potential for > problems also grows. Spamcop for instance has suffered greatly from a > large number of anti-commercialism administrators or people that are > just plain irresponsible reporting their spam, and a system like this > represents a potential for problems of a similar type, where you are > expected to trust an administrator without regard to the content of the > messages, the protections that they have in place to prevent misuse, or > even their honesty in joining in the first place. > > There are many of us that have had issues with our customers spamming on > occasion, and if you can't trust your own customers, why should you > trust the customers of others over whom you have no control over. If > these don't currently represent a measurable problem, then why apply a > fix which might prevent a future spamming incident from being blocked? > > I'm not against the idea of having some form of a registry, however the > root of the problem is in differentiating among the gray stuff and not > among the non-automated stuff. I find value in things like > BONDEDSENDER, though to some purists, they view this as legitimizing > large commercial spammers because their definition of spam differs from > mine. Heck, Kami and I can't even agree on what spam is when it comes > to this gray area stuff, and although I trust Kami's opinion on what he > considers to be trusted senders, I wouldn't automatically trust his > customers, or some list over which he is only in part involved in > maintaining. > > I'm much rather first create a concise definition for spam and a process > for review, and then build a list of automated-mailers to trust and not > trust, and share that list with a select group of trusted administrators > to maintain, and allow other non-trusted administrators to make use of. > The list would have to be IP based, and the people would need to be > responsible and dedicated to the task, and share the same values, > otherwise it would just become another Spews. > > If someone can show me the value of crediting points to hosts which > account for almost none of my mail volume, over which I have no > familiarity with their rules and procedures, and for which I am not > aware of any substantial problems, I will definitely reconsider my stance. > > Matt > > > > R. Scott Perry wrote: > > > > >> How do the names get added to the list (or web-o-trust)? > > > > > > By getting someone to trust them. > > > > For example, we're asking that our customers let us know that they > > have set up a WOT file, and we add them to our WOT file, which a lot > > of people already trust. > > > >> It appears that companies say, "I'm not a spammer, trust me!" What > >> keeps the spammers of the list? > > > > > > Several things. > > > > First is the limitations -- for example, if you trust us (that the IPs > > we list and the WOT files that we list are all "good"), but have a > > feeling that one of our customers may somehow include a spammer's WOT > > file, you can use "include http://www.declude.com/web-o-trust.txt 2", > > which will trust us (1) and our customers (2). But it will not trust > > IPs that our customers trust. > > > > Second is "omit". If we find that somehow a spammer gets a WOT file > > that our WOT file trusts, we can omit it ("omit > > http://www.spammer_domain.com/web-o-trust.txt ). > > > > But, it would be a real hassle for a spammer to do this -- they > > typically have lots of compromised servers that they would need to > > list, and would need to find someone to trust them. Even if they find > > someone to trust them, they won't have any idea how many people are > > whitelisting them (since many people will use the limits). Then, once > > they are caught, they will quickly be removed. > > > > Of course, only time will tell how effective it really turns out to > > be. I think it has a lot of promise. > > > > -Scott > > > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
