On 01/27/03, "Michael A. Atkinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes. However, this is becoming a marketing ploy. ISP's are competing by
> > making claims for the amount of spam that they block. Judging from the
> > Verizon forum (subscribers can opt in or out of spam filtering) users expect
> > that the Spam handling is some form of digital magic. While the DNSBL may be
> > clear, who's to say that the responsible party at the ISP is clear.
> > Ultimately, though, it's the user that is affected and information to that
> > level is very esoteric.
>
> All flippant commentary about Verizon aside, I certainly agree with you that
> ISPs should be very open and clear about their filtering methods.
I have yet to find anyone, anywhere, who disagrees with that
statement. And yet, most ISP's do not disclose the specifics of
their filtering for two reasons:
1. Spammers will find out. To give an overly simplistic
example, if an ISP announces that their filters watch
for the word "spooge" then spammers will stop using
that word, or modify it to read "spoge" or "spoooge."
2. Lawyers will find out. To continue that same overly
simplistic example, if the lawyers from SpoogeCo hear
that an ISP is filtering on the word "spooge," they
will sue -- and quite possibly win. From a purely
legal standpoint, it's safer to stay quiet.
Neither of these are good for users, and I know someone will be
quick to reply with more bad examples and even worse analogies,
but my point is that it's never as simple as it looks. ISP's
will get blamed no matter what they do.
--
J.D. Falk "There's pork in the tofu?!"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
spamcon-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.spamcon.org/mailman/listinfo/spamcon-general#subscribers
Subscribe, unsubscribe, etc: Use the URL above or send "help" in body
of message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact administrator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
