The problem is that these definitions vary as we have seen with
blacklists, and if we go that way, we'll end up with the same problems.
That's what worries me in particular regarding reputation systems and
blacklists. In regards to whitelists and accreditation, what worries me
is how they are used.
Yakov
Tom Thomson wrote:
I think they are attempting to address the problem of recognizing non-spam
as non-spam. They don't address any particular sort of spam, they merely
tell us that certain people are accredited as non-spammers according to yhe
service managers definition of non-spammer..
-----Original Message-----
From: asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On
Behalf Of Yakov
Shafranovich
Sent: 10 March 2004 12:54
To: ASRG
Subject: [Asrg] 3b. SMTP Verification - Reputation/Accreditation
Services - Problem Statement
After the much heated discussion on the topic, I want to back track and
ask all of you a simple question:
What aspects of the spam problem do these services
(reputation/accreditation) propose to solve? What types of spam messages
specifically do they address?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg