[Top] [All Lists]

Re: slight update to draft-macdonald-antispam-registry

2011-05-11 12:07:16


Yes, I agree with your comments below. I thought I'd just throw in an alternate minority view. :-) Over the years RBL's have caused much grief in the systems here. My personal belief is that while they make an administrators life easier, they are bad for any business that can be hurt with false positives. From my perspective that is any business that relies on email for their primary means of communications.

So for what we do here, my preference is to continue to rely on more deterministic methods for keeping the unwanted message volume down, while at the same time keeping the false positive rate at or near zero.

Best Regards,

-- Tim

On 5/12/2011 12:09 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

On 5/11/2011 9:03 AM, Tim Kehres wrote:
I guess it all depends on what you consider a 'significant problem'. The metrics used to make this determination will vary from business to business. For the
several sites that I run here (small in comparison), any false positives
represent a potential loss of business or a hit on business and we do everything we can to avoid. Other mechanisms used in tandem seem to knock the spam levels down to a level, at least for us, that are acceptable without the uncertainties
associated with RBL's.

Hi, Tim.

The issue is not that some folk comfortably choose not to use such lists. There are always such cases.

The question is whether they are in widespread use (they are), whether they are deemed essential by those users (it is) and whether they cause the cited problem (apparently only minimally).

False positives can be extremely damaging. I've nearly lost some consulting business because my filters were overly aggressive. But that said, the industry very clearly deems them generally a net positive.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>