Hi, On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:36:12 -0700 "jdow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Dan Wilder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > No sympathy for Mr. Richter. > > > > However. > > > > Speaking as an operator of several double-opt-in mailing lists who takes > > abundant care to remove anybody at even a hint of difficulty, I'll > > attest SpamCop's anonymity policy is a pain in some part of the anatomy. > > > > A typical incident. > > > > [ typical incident of anonymous SpamCop user abusing it's anonymity > > redacted ] > > > > Maybe they've cleaned up their act. It's been quite a long time since > > I've heard from SpamCop. > > Dan, you are in an industry that is dominated by people who harvest optout > as a means of obtaining new addresses to spam. [...] Of course, if > you can show a very distinct mailing-list structure with protections against > forged signups and quick removal upon request, such as yahoogroups or the > RedHat mailing lists, it should be far easier to get off SpamCop's lists > than if you automatically opt people in and require them to opt out. Bear with me because this goes against everything you have probably experienced dealing with spam and mailing lists. If you run clean lists and do the right thing, you will get complaints. Read that sentence again about six or seven times until it starts to sink in. This is important because it only refers to a handful of bulk mail firms. The remainder of this missive assumes one is running clean lists and does one's best to ensure that only people who want mailings receive them. We're not talking Ralsky, Richter, Atriks, Microsoft's bCentral, or Topica here. Confirmed (or double) opt-in lists do not necessarily have lower complaint rates than unconfirmed (single) opt-in lists; this varies a lot by audience and mailing frequency, though perhaps not by mail volume. I can name at least two ways random addresses get signed up to COI lists without a person being involved in the confirmation step, and without doing anything illegal, immoral or fattening. (I'll give you a couple hints: fat fingers, auto-responders, nanas, and news spiders.) Aside: There's a long thread on this in the SPAM-L archives from a few months ago that's absolutely fascinating. Read the FAQ, subscribe, and lurk; it's occasionally a very good source of information. But lurk for a while because they don't suffer fools gladly there. While I appreciate and support the need for anonymity when reporting security incidents such as spam attacks, anonymity is a double-edged sword. I have no problem with organizations refusing to act on munged reports provided they actually *act* on reports. I have no problem with people blowing off SpamCop reports if the reporter a) can't be bothered to do basic independent research and b) behaves like a big asshat. COI is by no means a panacea if you run clean lists and do the right thing. At that point, the best you can do is listwash the egregious complainers and never accept subscriptions from them again. If someone is getting mailings they don't want but they won't tell you their address (go back and read that important sentence again), how do you do the right thing and stop mailing them? > (PS, since you are in the industry you probably do not want to know how > many such lists I have silently blacklisted to my spam folder and never > read because I consider them too "dangerous" to unsubscribe. Some are from > otherwise "reputable" companies, such as Macromedia and Real Media.) Real Networks are spammers; I don't recall a time when they could be trusted with an email address. I don't know specifically about Macromedia but it shouldn't be that hard to do the research to separate the wheat from the chaff. -- Bob
