On 01/28/2011 01:17 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 27/Jan/11 22:54, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 01/27/2011 01:51 PM, John Levine wrote:
We all know what a bad reputation *is*, but what we're really
interested in is how a bad reputation *is acquired*.
Agreed. I'm also interested in what one does with the info once you
We can do two sorts of things: share it, and use it for decision making.
Equally important is how a bad reputation is unacquired.
Isn't that the same as acquiring good reputation? But whom from, in
From what I've seen, they seem very asymmetric. Whereas acquiring a bad
reputation is automated, unacquiring a 'bad' reputation seems to
generally require human intervention, pleading, and in some cases what
amount to bribes. Considering that many of these reputation systems are
hair triggered out of necessity, the amount of false positives is bound
to be pretty high. So how to get back out of a blackhole is a whole lot
more arcane than falling into one.
Worse is that in some cases you simply cannot because the black hole's
operators are uninterested, unavailable, unable, or in some cases just
crazy. Remember that it takes nothing to set up shop as a purveyor of
blackholes. So there are zillions of them each vying to be the super
massive blackhole. Some of them are really good, some of them are
really shady. And from what I can tell, there are a lot of mail operators
who don't seem to realize or care that there are quality differences.
Maybe we need a blackhole of blackholes.
Asrg mailing list