On 26/Jan/11 17:19, John Leslie wrote:
Alessandro Vesely <vesely(_at_)tana(_dot_)it> wrote:
Any host might be taken down, hijacked, circumvented, or otherwise
abused for sending spam, what makes a difference is whether it has
an abuse team who is willing and capable of countering that.
That does make _an_ important difference, but not one sufficient
for most admins to blindly accept the spam load during an incident.
Agreed. Whether to accept, filter, or reject should also depend on
_Reputation_ is a measure of such will and capacity.
"Your Network / Your Rules" applies, of course...
Yes, for the behavior. "Reputation", as a term, does imply some
agreement among the people who define its value for the relevant
subject. This is a value that we want to share.
But to me, "reputation" needs to suffer during the interim before
corrective action is completed.
Yes, if it takes too long.
OTOH, in the absence of a useful abuse-team, reputation shold _stay_
bad for a rather long time. IMHO, of course...
Which is why I consider "vouching" services so important.
I too. However, I suddenly get struck dumb when I ask myself how
would I manage in order to vouch for someone, what feedback would I
need? Possibly, _all_ of the people who interact with an entity
should contribute to the definition of its reputation.
Asrg mailing list