David F. Skoll wrote: > On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 16:17:28 +0100 > Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk> wrote: > > [...] > >> ...and we still don't have better standardized and documented way to >> report abuse, do we? > > postmaster@ *has* to be there for sure, so if abuse@ is not, send > your reports to postmaster@ > > I understand what rfc-ignorant.org is trying to achieve. The reality > is that blocking every site that would be a candidate for listing on > rfc-ignorant.org would cause huged numbers of FPs. > > rfc-ignorant.org is very good at the "Be conservative in what you > send" part of the Robustness Principle, but no so good at "be liberal > in what you accept."
I have been using rfc-ignorant for at least five years, I regularly submit new sites and I apply a local list of whitelisted domains. IMO, it's not up to rfc-ignorant to apply judgement, rfc-ignorant is merely the publisher of a list of domains meeting certain criteria. To apply judgement is for me to do, not rfc-ignorant. I do this with SA scores and by applying my whitelist. Perhaps one could argue that rfc-ignorant should publish a list of "excused" or whitelisted domains, i.e. domains for whom it is deemed reasonable to violate the criteria, but this would require rfc-ignorant to apply judgement, something I would rather be without. /Per Jessen, Zürich
