spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: FTC: we need sender authentication before "DoNot Spam" can work

2004-06-17 10:00:09
On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 16:36, Seth Goodman wrote:
Unfortunately, many anti-spam activists consider that MAPS went brain-dead
years ago.  Of course, if you like the idea that an IP is only added after
every possible measure is taken to exonerate the purported offender (and
their spam run is largely complete), it certainly your decision to select
this list, as well as pay for it.  This is a very conservative listing
policy and it may suit your needs quite well.  Most people don't choose that
service, but that's what makes the world go 'round.

I no longer use the MAPS services myself either - I find the SpamHaus
SBL and DSBL much more to my liking. Again, they're relatively
conservative lists; I don't think I could live with a list as aggressive
as the SpamCop list but it's good that there are choices available.

However, I do have to change my previous statement, as I now know of a
blacklist that contacts the spammer and gives them a chance to "correct the
problem" before listing them.  I don't doubt that many responsible
blacklists will first contact a provider that is _known_ to promptly take
action on abusive accounts.  However an unknown service that generates
multiple complaints in a short period deserves to be listed immediately and
that's exactly what most lists do.  If these lists generated too many false
positives, people would stop using them.  They do not, and neither do they
have to resort to the spammer-friendly policies of MAPS to achieve that.

I think calling MAPS spammer-friendly is bit harsh to be honest, but
we're all entitled to our opinions ;-)

Paul.