Blogger would also like to know if a feed is getting spam flags downstream of the hub. It could be useful info. More so if the subscriber / reporter has a verified identity and reputation of course. Don't forget about intentional false positive attacks.
Gets complex quickly, will always be optional, thus perhaps a separate spec or extension is better. On Monday, October 19, 2009, Ian Kallen <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > > -- -- John Panzer / Google [email protected] / abstractioneer.org / @jpanzer
