On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Michael Thomas <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
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.
True. This actually should motivate the mail senders to take care in their
e-mail hygiene so that they won't fall into that hole in the first place.
Not necessarily a bad thing, IMHO.
And this is due to the fact that the offenders don't change their behaviour
very often, or if they do, it doesn't often last very long.
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.
It doesn't really hurt much if somebody is in "Crazy Al's left-handers block
list": badly managed services will lose their users pretty quickly.
--
Mr. Esa Laitinen
Tel. +41 76 200 2870
skype/yahoo: reunaesa
Blog: http://happiloppuuahistaa.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg