That's not a systemic problem, that's a terms-of-service problem. If I
were operating a hub, I wouldn't re-publish the feedback nor offer any
guarantee that an item is distributed to subscribers. If the subscribers
I serve decided a site is a feed-scraper/affiliate/pills/pr0n site they
don't like, that's between us.
I'm not a proponent of YAGNI complexity. I'm assuming folks are
interested in directing creative energies outside of spam filtering,
PSHB should be informed by the failings of XMLRPC pings, SMTP and the
other spam-infected data streams we've all experienced with protocols of
days gone by that were too "simple" to account for these issues. It'd be
a damn shame if hubs later end up having to bolt on awkward
afterthoughts (SPF, sender ID, etc), that's why I'm raising it now.
Bob Wyman wrote:
A major problem with "feedback" is that folk may be offended when
their data is flagged as spam. This can lead to lawsuits and expensive
demands to know who flagged the content... This risk is one reason why
spam is usually dropped silently.
bob wyman
On Oct 19, 2009 6:31 PM, "Ian Kallen" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
igrigorik wrote: > There are a few things that would have to be
resolved: > - Spam. Just as with t...
It'd be nice to see feedback mechanism built into this ecosystem lest
the hubs simply become open relays. Right now, services consuming the
SixApart atomstream have no way to programaticly tell SixApart "We
received updates for source X but found it to be spam". Similarly,
sources downstream from pingomatic can't tell PoM how (un)useful a ping
it relayed was; today > 90% of the old-school XMLRPC pings out there are
for a spam site and each of the services downstream from ping relayers
have their own mechanisms for dealing with it but no feedback recourse.
I'd hate to see a PSHB fail to learn from these lessons.
This gets hairy if the hub re-publishes the feedback; naturally spammers
would love to know when their publishes are detected as spam so they
adapt their tactics. But if the hub simply knows that all of its
destinations rejected items from a source, it can decide whether or not
to continue relaying its content. I would imagine that hubs would
advertise the repertoire of feedback they'll accept and provisioning
feedback to the hub would be optional.
--
Ian Kallen
blog: http://www.arachna.com/roller/spidaman
tweetz: http://twitter.com/spidaman
vox: 925.385.8426
--
Ian Kallen
blog: http://www.arachna.com/roller/spidaman
tweetz: http://twitter.com/spidaman
vox: 925.385.8426
