On 02/27/2011 12:15 PM, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Feb 27, 2011, at 9:08 AM, Joe Sniderman wrote:
Charging to remove a negative reputation is also more or less equiv to
charging to add a positive reputation (such as a commercial whitelist or
vouching service). Both have merits, both sometimes smell bad or leave
a bad taste, both are sometimes *incorrectly* termed as "extortion" or
similar. -1 * -1 == +1 * +1 its the identical adjustment, merely
expressed differently.
No. Not even a little.
One difference is that in the case of charging to remove a negative
reputation, you have a business incentive to add negative listings
for reasons that are dubious or even entirely false.
That could equally be applied to whitelists: one could have an incentive
to create bogus reasons for de-whitelisting. Of course doing so would
destroy the credibility of the whitelist. A blacklist doing the same
would destroy its own credibility as well. Both have the same potential
problems, and potential merits.
More importantly, both provide a business incentive to ignore negative
behavior from a paying customer. However, that potential conflict of
interest, in both cases is just that: potential. Disclosure rather than
a "MUST NOT" places that in the open.
Look at those
blacklists that charge for removal, and look at the quality of the data.
AFAIK the only at all major DNSBL that charges for removals charges for
expedited removals only, and thats UCEPROTECT. (am I forgetting one?)
Regardless of what one thinks of their policies, philosophies or
whatever, its quality is pretty decent. Even their default 7 day wait
is shorter than some free-delist commercial DNSBLs take to reply to a
ticket.
Another difference is that paying for a positive listing gives you that
positive listing for a well-defined period of time, unless you do something
pretty egregious.
Assuming an honest whitelist, yes.
Paying for removal of a negative listing doesn't
mean that you won't be relisted a couple of days later (just the opposite,
in some cases - if you pay off $BLACKLIST once they're clear that you're
likely to pay them off again, so repeated relistings can be profitable).
The assumption there is that the blacklist is likely to be less honest
than the whitelist. As long as both are honest, then the paid removal or
whitelisting is a good thing. If dishonest, it leads to repeated
listings or alternatively de-whitelistings. It also creates a bias
toward the paying customer, the listee or ex-listee.
There are many other differences between the two, both philosophical
and operational.
Yes, the paid-delist blacklist variety tends to focus more on protecting
recipients, the paid-list whitelist variety tends to focus on protecting
senders.
--
Joe Sniderman <joseph(_dot_)sniderman(_at_)thoroquel(_dot_)org>
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg