ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
You're completely missing the point. This issue isn't knowing how to build a
large scale email system and I never said it was. Rather, the issue is whether
or not people's opinions about the effectiveness of various antispam
mechanisms
are valid when all they have is a small amount of experience, often quite
dated.
Granted that it's always dangerous to extrapolate from a small sample.
But is anybody's experience valid, then?
From my perspective, the guys who run these large email systems
generally seem to believe that they have to do whatever they're doing,
regardless of how much the filtering criteria that they're using have
any thing to do with the desirability of the mail to the recipient, and
regardless of any particular sender's or recipient's actual experience
with having their mail filtered.
IOW, It's very easy for both the individual and the mail system operator
to find reasons to disregard the other's experience. Who is to say who
is right?
I certainly don't think that a mail system operator's actions to filter
mail without the recipient's consent are inherently justified just
because they happen operating a mail system. They do bear some
responsibility for their role in this process and in their selection of
filtering criteria.
--
As for Ted's message, I just thought it was an interesting anecdote, and
(as others have pointed out) not particularly relevant to the DNSBL
discussion. I didn't see anything wrong with him posting it, and don't
understand why it's provoked such a reaction.
--
And as for DNSBLs - clearly, there are both good and bad aspects to
using third party reputation services as opposed to sites using their
own filtering criteria. e.g.:
benefits of third party reputation services:
- when the number of "customers" of a reputation service helps defray
the cost of maintaining a current and accurate list, and of improving
their criteria over time
- when the high visibility of a popular reputation service helps keep it
honest
drawbacks of third party reputation services:
- when a widely used reputation service is wrong in a way that affects a
large number of sites, whereas when a single site's criteria are wrong
it only affects that site's recipients (and arguably the single site is
more accountable for its actions).
- when the reputation is based on something (like an address or address
block) that isn't sufficiently fine-grained to reliably distinguish spam
from ham, as compared to a site filter which has access to more criteria
and can use the larger set of criteria to filter more accurately.
Once again, the crucial issues seem to be transparency, accountability,
granularity rather than the reputation reporting mechanism. Which is
not to say that the mechanism doesn't also warrant improvement.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf