On 12/11/2008 12:49, "der Mouse" <mouse(_at_)Rodents-Montreal(_dot_)ORG> wrote:
If a statistically valid sample of an ISP's users (as processed by
their own user reputation systems) think something is spam, why would
that ISP disagree?
Ummm...maybe because they know most end users don't know the difference
between spam and other forms of unwanted mail?
Why should that matter? It's unwanted, and it got reported, and it's up to
the ISP to decide what to do about that.
And when it comes to "this is mail we want to block", they should. But
when it comes to "this mail is spam", they shouldn't, or at the very
least should apply some local intelligence by someone who _does_ know
the difference.
That's what reputation systems do. Some of them do it well, some do it
poorly, but they all do it much faster and more accurately than the old
"which /24 has pissed off the sysadmin today?" method of spam-blocking.
One of the things I've noticed is that far too many people - on any
side - seem to lose track of the fact that mail can be non-spam and
still be eminently blockworthy.
Maybe because they don't care if there's a difference between spam and other
forms of unwanted mail?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg