----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Schwartzman" <neil(_at_)cauce(_dot_)org>
Just to clarify a couple of points:
1. I am no longer working for Return Path. Everyone there remains in
my highest esteem, and
Apologies for not knowing the current state of your career. I just wanted to
give credit where it was due :)
2. I disagree with you. Negative reputation is something no-one wants,
nor should you be able to buy your way out of it. Conversely, a
positive bump to differentiate you from the competition is valuable
(but no, no-one who is a crappy sender could bribe their way onto the
list, not while I was there, and not since I left), and something
those that benefit from the service should pay for, just as ISPs
should pay for the use of a DNSBL.
I do see your point, and will vouch that RP has gotten better in recent times
but, in reality, senders of quality mail don't really need that positive bump,
do they? Sure, in IPv6, that may be the only thing that gets their mail
through, but we're not there yet and neither is this BCP.
Just as a DNSBL is expected to block all crappy traffic they know
about, so too is a whitelist expected to only list the good traffic
they know about. While we had some heated debates over the years
concerning sanctions to take against clients (I always voted for
firing), delisting is just as painful, especially when a client is
paying a certification company, and isn't certified. ;-)
In a score-based system, all of that rhetoric is lost to the final recipient.
A listing on a pos-rep list is just as good as no listing on a neg-rep list.
Paying either one to get there results in the same net effect to the final
recipient. And that's who we all care about, right?
I will note that other companies also charged for certifying -
Goodmail, and now Spamhaus, among others. Just as it should be.
Whitelisting and blacklisting are two different beasts, serving two
different masters, and thus, two different business models.
While I realize RP isn't alone, I've no experience with Goodmail, and Spamhaus'
list is just too new to bother with at the moment. I also understand your
argument that, in theory at least, the models are different. However, my goal
was to point out that their net effect was identical and, therefore, the BCP
should either address the models as a whole or not address them at all.
--
/Jason
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg