On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 02:52:30PM +0100, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote:
I may agree with some of your arguments. But OK, you're not interested in
having user feedback. Other people are. So, let they get it. If you think
this is useless, just don't use it. It's an option : MAY, not MUST.
You're missing most, if not all, of the point. I suggest you re-read
my message with this idea in mind:
The primary beneficiaries of a standardized, widely-deployed mechanism
for a report-as-spam-button are spammers/abusers: they will own it
the moment they choose and will do whatever they want with it -- which is
unlikely to be good for us *whether we're using such a mechanism or not*.
Were the consequences of this confined solely to those operations who
might use such a mechanism, this *might* be tolerable: I could argue
that they fully deserve the pain they're inflicting on themselves, and
that perhaps Pavlovian conditioning would eventually kick in and get
them to stop. Maybe. But that's unfortunately not the case: site A's
decision to use this makes them a conscriptable-at-will attacker of
site B for all values of {A, B}.
I *strongly* recommend your attention to the discussion several years
ago on spam-l of the consequences of Verizon's choice to use outbound
SAV, wherein we all (well, maybe not "all", but those who were paying
attention) got a painful object lesson in how spammers will quickly
notice, study and employ ill-considered methodologies to their advantage.
There are some instructive points about that experience that directly
apply here -- and which should give considerable pause to anyone familar
with them.
---Rsk
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg