From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>The newsletter for the Electronic Frontier Foundation is not spam.
This is still a matter of personal opinion. You must never forget this fact. > I would say that every newsletter has on the bottom > instructions to unsubscribe. A large percentage of spams that we recieve have 'instuctions to unsubscribe'. Most of these tend to be links to dead or non-existant web pages, and many others will do NOTHING as far as unsubcribing goes, but instead, they simply serve to validate a 'real person' email address that is then sold to even more spammers. Unsubscibing to a maillist that was never subscribed to in the first place is one of the WORST things a person can do. > Those who are recieving the newsletter have opted in Are you saying that the EFF newsletter has NEVER been sent unsolicited? If that is the case you need to use software that confirms subscriptions, because although I haven't seen one of these newsletters recently, I HAVE recieved them in the past. I don't really care who subscribed me, or how I got subscribed, but it wasn't my doing, therefore I treat these newsletters as spam. > and if for some reason they haven't - they can easilly remove > themselves. Why should I have to unsubscribe from something that I never subscribed to in the first place? > If someone subscribes and then maliciously reports it as > spam for the purpose of blocking the newsletter, that's not free speech > - that's a denial of service attack. Anyone running any sort of maillist will needs to deal with this. It is nothing unique, and there is no reason to make Razor out to be the culprit. almost any spam prevention measure can be abused in this manner and the only solution that can possibly work is for none of us to use any sort of spam-traps whatsoever. I for one am NOT prepared to do this because if we allowed every peice of spam into our servers we'd go broke from the data costs. 2-3 years ago our servers (with no spam traps or filtering) were recieving in excess of 250,000 unsolicited emails PER DAY. Since using Razor, and other prevention measures we have reduced this down to about 100-150 per day - of these, we get about 2-4 false positives per day. I consider this to be quite acceptable and managable. > My point is that Razor is easilly exploitable as a tool to be used for > denial of service. I am suggesting that we think about this and try to > do something to make razor less exploitable. Razor is no more exploitable than any other spam prevention system. Razor does NOT delete any mail flagged as spam, nor does it prevent the delivery of any mail flagged as spam - it merely FLAGS any given message *possible* spam. What any given sysadmin (or user) does with the message as a result of this flagging is entirely at the discretion of the sysadmin (or user). It is NOT a RAZOR problem, and I really can't see why you think it is. Regards Rod ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Razor-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/razor-users
